surfmeter_get_system_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond 'Read', which aligns with annotations. It does not describe response format or pagination, but annotations cover the safety aspects, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 'Read' and lists the resources. It is appropriately sized and efficient, though it could benefit from a more structured breakdown of resource options. Overall, it is concise and well-organized.

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's complexity with 9 parameters and multiple resource types, the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on parameter combinations, expected responses, and how to filter results. The absence of an output schema increases the need for description clarity, which is not met. An agent would struggle to construct correct calls without additional context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the 9 parameters, including the required 'resource' field or the optional filters like limit, offset, state, and extended. The enum for resource is helpful but not elaborated. The description's list of resources implies the resource parameter but does not connect parameters to behavior, leaving agents to infer semantics.

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 identifies this as a read operation ('Read') and lists the specific data categories (server metadata, license usage, fleet health, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like surfmeter_search_* and surfmeter_update_client, which serve different purposes. However, it does not explicitly mention the required 'resource' parameter, leaving some ambiguity about how to select among the listed options.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it is obviously the tool for reading system status, there is no mention of alternatives or conditions that would route an agent away from it. The resource enum in the schema offers some context, but the description itself lacks routing information.

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