Omada controller status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes beyond that by signaling this is a non-mutating diagnostic ('health and wiring check') and listing what it inspects. It does not contradict annotations and adds context about scope without claiming a destructive 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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and enumerates the checks in a compact list; the second sentence provides a clear recommendation. Every phrase adds value, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 0-parameter read-only diagnostic, the description adequately covers when to call it and what information it surfaces. It does not mention the exact output shape, but no output schema exists and the enumerated checks imply the expected data. It is not fully exhaustive, but is complete enough for safe invocation.

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 and the schema is empty, so no parameter explanation is needed. The description still implicitly explains that no inputs are required by focusing entirely on the status of the controller environment. Baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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?

Description gives a specific verb and resource: it is a 'health and wiring check' for the Omada controller, enumerating exactly what it reports (version, API token state, write-mode, deny-list, API index freshness, legacy sessions, site list). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which target specific entities like sites, devices, or API discovery.

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?

Provides a clear trigger: 'Run this first when anything looks off.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly reference alternatives beyond the general first-step guidance. It gives actionable context but no exclusions.

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