get_agent_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It uses 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, and it describes the output content (status breakdown, health percentage). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating or mention any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 primary action ('Get a summary of all agents') and includes valuable specifics. No waste or redundancy.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides enough context about the return value by mentioning 'status breakdown and health percentage.' It does not fully specify the output structure, but for a summary tool, this is sufficient. The description could be slightly richer in relating to health_check or list_agents, but overall it is complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline per the rubric is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the schema is empty, so no additional semantics are required.

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's purpose: 'Get a summary of all agents' with specifics about status breakdown and health percentage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_agents (which likely lists agents individually) and get_agent_details (which targets a single agent).

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 implies usage for obtaining a high-level overview of all agents, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_agents or get_agent_details. There is no when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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