Summarize system health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context about the return shape (groups keyed by Systems/Chassis/Managers) and the rollup nature, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two concise sentences and an example, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and the example call is a useful quick-reference without waste.

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 tool has an output schema, and the description explains the return structure clearly. With only one optional parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is fully sufficient to infer usage and expected results.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single optional 'endpoint' parameter, so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. The example call get_health_summary() is already implied by the schema's default null, so the description does not compensate beyond what the schema offers.

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 ('Collect health/state rollups') and names the exact resources (Systems, Chassis, Managers), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_systems or get_system. The return structure is explicitly described, reinforcing the purpose.

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 phrase 'quick fleet health summary' provides a clear context for when to use this tool, implying it is for high-level overviews rather than detailed inspection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context against the sibling list is sufficient.

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