get_global_health

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses what the operation collects (WAN/LAN/WLAN status, health score, device/user counts), how it folds it into a healthy/degraded verdict, and that a per-device errors list appears when a console fails. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured annotation.

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 front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds a scoped usage sentence and a compact return-value summary. No filler or redundancy beyond a harmless restatement of read-only behavior.

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-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers scope, aggregated output fields, verdict semantics, failure behavior, and alternative tools. An agent has enough to invoke and interpret the result 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 no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4; the description appropriately omits parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Aggregate site health across every configured network console') and clearly identifies the fleet-wide scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming get_site_health for single-console detail and other global tools for inventory/client counts.

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?

It states exactly when to use the tool ('single fleet-wide health check') and lists alternatives with their purposes: get_global_inventory for device roster, get_global_client_summary for client counts, and get_site_health for full subsystem detail on one console. This is explicit routing with little left to inference.

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