uisp_get_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds helpful semantics: counts are badge-like, timestamps filter to newer items, and 0 returns current totals. It also clarifies the tool is a read-only aggregate by describing retrieval of counts, not mutations.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the main purpose is front-loaded. The long internal list of counts is necessary context and is ordered logically. It could be slightly easier to parse, but every clause 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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description names the key return categories and explains timestamp semantics, including the 0 default behavior. It is adequate for an agent to understand what this summary tool returns and how to scope it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by introducing the 'pass 0 for current totals' convention and tying the timestamps to named unread-count outputs, making the optional timestamp behavior more actionable.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Get badge-count-like values across the instance.' It enumerates the exact output categories (unread logs/outages/firmwares, client/site counts, devices needing authorization) and clearly differs from sibling list/get tools that operate on individual resources.

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 implies use for instance-wide summary counts rather than detailed per-resource data, and it explains timestamp scoping. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over list_sites, list_logs, or list_outages, nor does it name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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