get_infra_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is transparent. The description adds useful context about the covered areas but does not disclose any behavioral nuances such as data freshness, aggregation limits, or how statuses are determined. It neither contradicts nor significantly extends the annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose ('Infrastructure overview') and then lists key data categories. Every word earns its place with 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 zero-parameter input and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's scope by enumerating all major infrastructure areas. It provides a complete picture of what the overview includes, making it adequate for an agent to decide invocation and understand the return scope.

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 schema already fully describes the absence of inputs. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 provides an 'Infrastructure overview' and enumerates specific topics (Proxmox node status, Docker counts, storage, CrowdSec, NPM). This distinctively differentiates it from sibling overview tools like get_homelab_overview and get_media_overview by focusing on infrastructure components.

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 the tool is used when an infrastructure-level summary is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools. The usage context is inferable but not directly guided.

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