get_network_health

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

The description labels the operation read-only, matching the readOnlyHint annotation, and adds meaningful context about what the condensed report contains: WAN/LAN/WLAN status, a composite health score, and device/user tallies. It does not describe exact return formatting, but the annotation lowers the burden and the description still adds substantive behavioral detail.

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 opening sentence and the alternatives paragraph are tight and front-loaded. However, the Args block duplicates the input schema's descriptions almost verbatim, which adds length without new information for an agent that already has access to the schema.

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?

With only two optional parameters, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient selection criteria, default behavior, and a summary of the returned report contents. It could be more explicit about the exact response structure, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The Args section in the description restates the schema descriptions (site defaults to 'default'; device is optional console name) without adding new constraints, format details, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Return a single overall health summary for one site's network.' It further specifies the aggregated content (WAN/LAN/WLAN status, composite health score, device/user tallies) and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_site_health, get_all_sites_health, and get_global_health.

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 names the alternatives and the conditions that select them: use get_site_health for full per-subsystem detail, get_all_sites_health for a multi-site sweep, and get_global_health for cross-console aggregation. This gives an agent clear routing guidance with no inference required.

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