get_device_health_summary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is read-only, and the description reinforces this by stating 'Read-only operation' and listing exactly what metrics are reported. It adds useful behavioral context about the scope and content of the summary, though it does not describe output format or potential response limitations.

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 compact and well-organized: a single sentence states the core purpose, a second sentence clarifies read-only behavior and content, and the usage guidance names alternatives efficiently. The Args section is redundant with the schema but harmless and minimal.

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 tool's relatively simple behavior, the description covers the essential contextual information: what the summary includes, that it is read-only, and which sibling tools cover related but different needs. No output schema exists, but the listed output content gives enough expectation. A short note about response shape or error behavior would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with defaults and descriptions. The tool description restates the site and device parameters but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 identifies the operation (summarize device health), the resource (APs, switches, and routers at a site), and the specific data included (uptime, load, memory, temperature, firmware, devices needing attention). It also names sibling tools that serve different purposes, making the tool's unique role unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives: use get_site_health or get_network_health for overall/site status, analyze_network_issues for issue reports, and get_client_experience_report for client perspective. This is direct routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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