get_global_inventory

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the underlying mechanism: it calls list_devices on each network-enabled device, merges results, tags entries with source device name, and captures per-console errors. It also specifies the return shape, giving the agent a clear behavioral model.

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 structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short read-only behavior note, explicit usage routing, and a compact Returns section. Every sentence adds information; none are redundant or filler.

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 aggregation tool, the description fully covers what it does, how it behaves, when to use it, and what it returns. There is no output schema, so the description's return-structure explanation is essential and sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Aggregate the full device inventory across every configured network console.' It also enumerates the device categories included (AP, switch, gateway, router), and clearly distinguishes this tool from nearby siblings by naming what it is not for.

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 gives explicit guidance: use this for a merged multi-console device view, use list_unifi_devices for the console roster itself, and use get_global_health / get_global_client_summary for aggregated health/client counts instead. This clearly routes the agent away from similar tools.

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