get_internet_health

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral disclosures such as side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a read-like tool, it only states what it does without any transparency about limitations or behaviors beyond the basic function.

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 relatively short but includes an unnecessary 'Args' section that lists a non-existent 'settings' parameter, making it slightly less structured. It front-loads the purpose but wastes space on incorrect parameter documentation.

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 (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the basic functionality. However, the misleading 'settings' argument and lack of details about the return structure (despite output schema being present) leave it incomplete for an autonomous agent looking for precise invocation 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?

The description adds meaning to the 'site_id' parameter by explaining that None yields aggregate metrics. However, it incorrectly lists 'settings: Application settings' as an argument, which does not appear in the input schema (only site_id is present). This misalignment reduces the value added and could confuse an agent.

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 'Get internet health metrics across sites', specifying the verb (Get) and resource (internet health metrics). It hints at aggregation behavior by mentioning 'site_id' optionality, which slightly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_site_health_summary or get_isp_metrics, though not explicitly.

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 provides usage guidance by indicating that site_id is optional and that omitting it returns aggregate metrics. However, it does not specify when to prefer this tool over similar siblings like compare_site_performance or get_cross_site_statistics, leaving room for ambiguity.

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