librenms_get_device_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states it gets health information but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what side effects exist (likely none), or any authentication/rate-limit requirements. This is insufficient for an agent to assess safety.

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 that is front-loaded and concise. It contains no wasted words, though it could be more informative without increasing length significantly.

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 only one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, what constitutes 'health information' beyond sensor types, or any operational context (e.g., error handling, pagination).

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 a single required parameter (hostname) with zero description coverage (schema_description_coverage=0%). The description does not explain the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name alone. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 device health information including all sensor types. It is a specific verb+resource combination, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like librenms_get_device_sensors, which might be expected to provide sensor-specific data.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., librenms_get_device_sensors for specific sensors, or librenms_get_device_stats for statistics). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or suitable use cases.

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