get_infra_overview

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is a 'compact snapshot' and lists included elements. While it doesn't discuss authorization or performance, for a read-only overview tool this is sufficient. Slight deduction for not mentioning any potential limitations (e.g., staleness).

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 concise sentences: first details output contents, second gives usage advice. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists all returned elements and provides usage context. It clearly sets expectations for a snapshot. Could be slightly more specific about the structure (e.g., JSON vs. table), but adequate for the tool's purpose.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. Following the rule for 0 parameters, baseline is 4. No additional parameter explanation needed.

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 it returns a 'compact infrastructure snapshot' listing specific resources (service counts, databases, queues, topics, secrets, lambdas, findings). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_graph_summary by noting it's for quick orientation vs. full detail.

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?

Explicit guidance: call this first at the start of any database or infrastructure task. Provides clear alternative: prefer over get_graph_summary for quick orientation, use get_graph_summary only when full detail is needed.

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