dashbrr_get_uptimekuma_summary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safe-read behavioral trait. The description adds the type-prefix requirement for instance_id, which is a useful constraint, but it does not disclose other behaviors such as error handling, output specifics, or any side effects. This is acceptable given the annotation but not highly transparent.

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 short sentences, with the purpose stated first and the critical parameter constraint second. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, and an output schema present), the description covers the main gotcha (type-prefix format) and states the basic purpose. It does not elaborate on what the summary contains, but the output schema exists to fill that gap, making the description sufficiently complete for a basic getter.

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?

The schema only specifies instance_id as a string, with no description. The tool description adds crucial meaning by requiring a type prefix (e.g., 'uptimekuma-0'), giving the only parameter a concrete format and example that the schema completely lacks. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource (Uptime Kuma) and the deliverable (monitor summary), distinguishing it from sibling tools that target other services. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit imperative like 'Retrieve' or 'Get', so it lacks an explicit verb, though the tool name compensates.

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 guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description solely addresses the instance_id format, not selection criteria or exclusions. Sibling tools imply service-specific usage, but the description itself offers no contextual direction.

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