dashbrr_get_traefik_summary

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the description's 'overview/summary' wording. The description adds a critical behavioral requirement (instance_id must be type-prefixed) beyond the annotation. It doesn't describe side effects, rate limits, or other behaviors, but with readOnlyHint the bar is lower and this is acceptable.

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?

The description is two sentences, tightly written. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose, and the second provides essential parameter guidance. No redundant wording 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?

The tool has a simple input schema and an output schema that likely covers return structure. The description adequately scopes the tool's function (Traefik routers/services/middleware, issue flags, certificates) and the required parameter format. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema handles that. Minor omissions like what 'flagged issue routers' means are not critical.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It compensates well by explaining the instance_id format and providing a concrete example ('traefik-0'). This gives actionable meaning beyond the schema's plain 'string' type, making the parameter semantics much clearer.

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 returns a 'Traefik router/service/middleware overview, flagged issue routers, and certificate summary.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and the name reinforces it. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools by targeting Traefik specifically.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. However, the description's clear resource focus (Traefik) makes the intended use case obvious, especially given the many sibling tools for different services. Usage is implied but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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