getNetworkHealthSummary

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

Discloses that individual sections gracefully degrade if an endpoint is unavailable, adding valuable behavioral context beyond a simple listing. With no annotations provided, this is a useful disclosure of error handling behavior.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or filler.

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 composite nature and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the main sections (dashboard, WAN, clients, threats) and graceful degradation. Minor omission of response format or pagination, but acceptable for a snapshot tool.

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 input schema already covers both parameters (siteId, customHeaders) with 100% description coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is a 'composite health snapshot' that combines dashboard overview, internet/WAN status, client distribution, and recent active threats. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., getDashboardOverview, getGatewayHealth) by being a single aggregated call.

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?

Explicitly recommends using this as the first call when checking if everything is working or starting a troubleshooting session. While it doesn't enumerate when not to use it, the guidance is clear and practical, implying deeper dives via other tools.

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