Get Fleet Connectivity Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds specific detail about returned statuses but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits or limitations beyond the 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?

Description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and concise. Could be slightly expanded with output details, but remains efficient.

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 parameters, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and output. No additional context is necessary for an agent to use this tool 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?

Input schema is empty with 100% coverage, so description need not explain parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as description does not add parameter info, though none is needed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get fleet-wide connectivity summary') and lists distinct categories (online, offline, never connected, active last hour), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like get_things_status.

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 context implies use for a high-level overview, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., get_things_status for per-thing detail). No when-not-to-use or alternative names provided.

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