get_global_client_summary

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining aggregation behavior: it aggregates active clients from network-enabled devices, computes wireless/wired/blocked totals, top 10 talkers, per-device counts, and includes an errors list when a console fails. This materially helps an agent predict behavior and output.

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 front-loaded: purpose, behavior, usage alternatives, and return shape each get a concise sentence. There is no filler or repetition that wastes the agent's attention.

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 zero-argument read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers scope, aggregation semantics, alternatives, and the return dictionary including failure behavior. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter guidance is needed.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and scope: 'Summarize connected clients across every configured network console.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from per-console tools like list_clients and names related siblings, so an agent can tell what it does without opening schemas.

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 says to use this tool for fleet-wide client visibility and names alternatives: get_global_inventory for the device roster, get_global_health for subsystem health, and list_clients for full per-client detail. This provides clear routing guidance with exclusions.

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