cmdb_health_dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only safety is covered. The description adds that it focuses on completeness metrics for server and network CIs, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, or required permissions, so it only partially extends beyond annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information, earning the highest score.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description provides adequate context for a simple getter. It tells the agent what metric to expect (completeness) and for which CIs (server and network). It doesn't elaborate on the return format, but for such a simple tool, this is sufficient.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline is 4 for 0-parameter tools. The description appropriately doesn't attempt to add parameter details.

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 the tool retrieves CMDB data quality metrics, specifically completeness of server and network CI data. This gives a specific verb+resource scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like analyze_data_quality or check_table_completeness, though the focus on server/network CI data provides some differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios. The description simply states what it does without context on choosing it over similar CMDB-related tools.

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