v2_health_audit

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (a ranked list of misconfigurations, each paired with the exact fixing tool call and its blast radius), which is the kind of output behavior an agent needs and cannot get from annotations or the absent output schema.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler; the scope and the return contract are both front-loaded and every clause carries 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?

For a read-only audit with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return contract (ranked misconfigurations plus remediation call and blast radius). The remaining gap is the unexplained, non-required siteId parameter and the absence of any note on runtime cost or permissions for a call that scans ten subsystems.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter (siteId) is not mentioned in the description at all. It is also not required, so the agent gets no guidance on whether omitting it is valid or what scope results. With low coverage, the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('health audit') and enumerates the exact config domains it spans (site settings, controller settings, services, switches, ports, VLAN profiles, radios, SSIDs, VLANs, logs), which sets it apart from narrower audits by scope. It stops short of naming which sibling audits it supersedes or complements, so the agent must infer the boundary from the scope list alone.

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?

'One-shot audit' implies this is a broad first-pass diagnostic rather than a targeted check, which is usable context. However, with several sibling audit tools present (v2_security_audit, v2_radar_audit, v2_interference_audit, v2_diagnostics), the description never states when to pick this one over them or when a narrower audit is preferable.

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