multi_health_checkRun health checks across multiple Huawei eNSP devices, optionally specifying device names, to assess status and identify network issues.
Run health checks for multiple devices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device_names | No | Optional device name list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no auth/permission needs, no rate-limit or timeout behavior, no indication of what happens when device_names is omitted or empty, and no description of partial-failure handling across devices. Only the batching nature of the call is conveyed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; nothing is wasted. Its brevity is appropriate, though it leaves no room for the scoping detail the tool needs.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description must carry everything, and it does not: it omits the semantics of the optional parameter, the expected result shape, and how per-device failures are reported. For a batch tool in a family with several near-identical siblings, that leaves too much unresolved.
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 100% for the single device_names parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not explain whether omitting device_names means 'all devices' or 'no devices', which is the key ambiguity for an optional array parameter.
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 ('Run health checks') and scopes it to 'multiple devices', which distinguishes it from the singular health_check and mcp_health_check siblings. However, it never defines what a health check entails or what 'multiple' means operationally.
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 plurality implies bulk use, but the description never says when to pick this over health_check, mcp_health_check, or the push_config family, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer the selection rule purely from the word 'multiple'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.