ise_dc_view_system_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the filterable columns and parameter defaults (limit 100), which gives some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior beyond the limit default, what happens on empty results, or any performance implications of querying a system-health view. The '[Report]' prefix hints at read-only behavior, but this is weak given zero annotation support.

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 a single sentence plus a column enumeration, which is compact and efficient. It front-loads the purpose and provides the key filterable fields in a compact list. No wasted words or redundancy with the schema.

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?

For a read-only report/view tool with a simple parameter set and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. The health-metric scope, filterable columns, and deployment targeting are covered. However, for a tool with zero annotations, it could benefit from stating this is a read-only monitoring query, clarifying what the output rows represent (per-node timestamped snapshots), and any limitations. It's adequate but not rich given the absence of annotation support.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 7 parameters are already documented. The description adds value by listing the filterable columns (TIMESTAMP, ISE_NODE, CPU_UTILIZATION, etc.), which directly informs how filter_column could be used. For the deployment parameter, the description tells users to call ise_list_deployments to see choices. The description names the data domain but doesn't extend parameter semantics much beyond what the schema provides, though the column list is a useful addition.

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 this is a 'System Summary' report tool displaying system health information like CPU utilization, storage utilization, CPU count. The '[Report]' prefix and explicit list of filterable columns make the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling dc_view tools, but the '[Report] System Summary' framing and explicit health-metric focus makes the purpose reasonably clear.

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 is framed as a '[Report]' and provides the health-metric context, implying this is for monitoring system state. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., other dc_view_* tools for authentication/accounting data), nor does it mention exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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