estate_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's job is lighter. It adds value by listing the output components, which are not in annotations. No contradiction.

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 purpose and then enumerates outputs efficiently. It is dense but not overly long; every phrase adds value.

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?

With an output schema present, the return values may be defined there, but the description still misses explaining the parameter's effect. Given the tool's simplicity and one param, this is a notable gap, making it minimally adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description completely omits the only parameter 'stale_after_hours'. This is a critical gap: the agent cannot understand how to adjust the staleness threshold or that a default exists.

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 'one-shot situational awareness across the whole estate' and lists specific outputs (totals, reboots, stale machines, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_computers or list_alerts which focus on individual aspects.

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 use for quick overview ('one-shot') and decision-making ('what to act on'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools, missing the highest bar.

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