prtg_get_sensor_status_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns aggregate counts by status and is scoped to the entire instance, implying a read-only summary operation. However, it does not mention the exact status set, output shape, authentication needs, or any operational constraints.

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?

One sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, specifies the scope, and gives concrete examples of the statuses included. Every part earns its place.

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 zero-parameter aggregation tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned, the scope, and the kind of breakdown. It does not enumerate every possible status or the response container, but those are minor gaps for selecting and invoking this tool.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description adds meaning about the result being status count summaries.

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 names a specific verb ('Get a summary') and a precise resource: all sensor states with counts by status. The phrase 'across the whole PRTG instance' clearly distinguishes it from per-object or per-group summary tools like prtg_get_object_sensor_summary.

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 instance-wide wording implies an overview use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings such as prtg_get_object_sensor_summary or prtg_list_sensors. There are no alternatives or exclusions mentioned, leaving routing to inference.

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