get_optimization_recommendations

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

The description labels itself as read-only, which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, and adds meaningful behavioral context by listing what it inspects. It goes beyond the annotation by explaining the scope of analysis, though it does not describe the exact shape of the returned recommendations.

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, concise, and front-loaded. The core purpose appears first, followed by usage guidance and parameter details, with no wasted words.

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?

The description is complete enough for a read-only analysis tool with two optional parameters. It covers purpose, scope, alternatives, and parameter behavior. A minor gap is the lack of detail about the returned recommendation format, but the description adequately communicates what the tool returns.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description's Args section largely duplicates that information and adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Analyze a site's configuration and return optimization recommendations') and resource, then enumerates the exact areas checked (channel selection, TX power, VLAN efficiency, port configurations, bandwidth utilization). It also names sibling tools with different purposes, making differentiation easy.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: use analyze_network_issues for fault/issue reports and get_device_health_summary for device status only. This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool versus clear alternatives.

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