get_camera_health_summary

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by describing the output shape: connected/disconnected partitioning, an overall 'healthy' or 'degraded' status, critical issues listing disconnected cameras, and remediation recommendations. This gives the agent a clear model of what the operation returns and how it behaves.

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 well-organized: a clear first sentence defines the core purpose, the next sentences add behavioral detail and routing guidance, and the Args section handles the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a read-only summary tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key return elements and selection behavior sufficiently. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 only parameter, device, is already fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description repeats the same device guidance without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb ('summarize') and resource ('connectivity and health of all cameras on one Protect console'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from list_cameras and get_camera_details. An agent can immediately understand the tool's scope and how it differs from nearby siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool for a fleet-wide connectivity check and names the alternatives for per-camera detail or a single camera's complete record. This gives clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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