trmm_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required permission scope and mentions governance/receipt behavior (Arbiter policy, ProofLink receipt), which adds value. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe potential side effects, failures, or rate limits, leaving some uncertainty for a cautious agent.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and outputs; the second provides scope and governance context. No redundant or excessive wording.

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?

For a parameterless summary tool, the description fully covers the main return values (counts and site list) and the only notable prerequisite (scope). Since there is no output schema, the description could elaborate on the response format, but the summarized list of data types is sufficient for a basic understanding.

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 input schema is vacuously complete. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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's action ('Get Tactical RMM agent summary') and enumerates its specific outputs (total, online, offline, overdue counts, site list). It distinguishes itself from related tools like trmm_agents and trmm_health by focusing on summary counts rather than individual agent details or health alone.

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 establishes a clear usage context: this is the go-to tool for an agent-level summary of Tactical RMM. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is obvious from the name and description. It also notes a prerequisite (required scope), which adds practical guidance.

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