getDashboardOverview

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, mention authentication needs, or disclose any side effects. The parameter description in schema mentions default site fallback, but the tool description itself lacks behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary repetition or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description sufficiently conveys the return value structure. The mention of 'connectivity graph' is slightly vague but acceptable for a high-level overview tool. No critical gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters (siteId, customHeaders) having descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the site overview topology, listing specific components (device counts, client counts, connectivity graph, health status). It distinguishes from sibling dashboard tools by being a general overview, reinforced by 'Good first call'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage as an initial overview ('good first call to understand what's in the network'), providing context. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, though the sibling list makes differentiation possible.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.