Device fleet health summary

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, open-world, so the description rightly focuses on content: it spells out the four attention criteria (stale check-in, no assigned user, passcode not set, encryption not enabled), which an agent could not infer otherwise. It stops short of saying whether the summary is cached, how expensive it is, or how the sections are shaped.

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 compact, front-loaded passage with no filler; the semicolon-separated clauses map to the summary's sections. Slightly dense as a single sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so thoroughly: the three count breakdowns, OS versions, and the per-category attention lists. Both parameters and the safe read-only nature are covered, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces stale_days by restating the attention rule and implicitly ties 'lists of devices needing attention' to the max_listed cap, but adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Summarise the whole fleet in one call') and then enumerates exactly what is produced: counts by platform/online/lifecycle status, OS versions in use, and attention lists. This clearly separates it from list_devices or get_device, which return individual records.

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?

Gives usage context ('Good for a daily check-in or "is anything wrong?"'), which implies when to reach for it, but never names alternatives or exclusions. It does not tell the agent to prefer list_devices when it needs full device objects or pagination.

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