generate_health_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the output is Markdown that the user can save (implying no file is written directly) and that include_clients=true causes a slower org-wide client count. However, it does not mention authentication, error behavior, or what happens if org_id is omitted, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and output format, followed by a practical note on parameter usage. No filler 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 moderate complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers what the report contains, the output format, and a performance consideration. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool without further 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for include_clients by explaining the performance trade-off (slower when true), which goes beyond the schema's simple 'Include the org-wide wireless client count'. This extra semantic helps the agent decide how to set the 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?

The description explicitly states the tool generates a network health report in Markdown format, enumerating the content (device totals, online/offline counts, offline AP list, per-site breakdown). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling report tools like generate_inventory_report and generate_firmware_report.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (generating a health report) and offers a specific usage tip (setting include_clients=false to avoid a slower query). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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