report_agent_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns an object with 'total', 'byState', and 'problematic' fields, indicating it is a read-only reporting operation. It does not mention any destructive side effects, which is appropriate.

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 concise and well-structured, with separate sections for general purpose, arguments, and return values. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given the complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the single parameter, the return structure, and the overall purpose. The sibling tools are diverse but this tool's niche is clearly defined.

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 description explicitly explains the 'type' parameter, listing possible values ('windows', 'mac', 'linux') and noting the default is 'windows'. This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which only provides a title and default value.

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 it shows the health status of the baramundi client agent across all devices and identifies devices with stopped or missing agent. It uses specific verbs ('zeigt', 'identifiziert') and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like report_inactive_devices or report_failed_jobs.

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 implicitly indicates usage by listing the type parameter (windows, mac, linux) which defines scope. It does not explicitly provide when to use vs. alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate use cases.

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