audit_network_monitoring_coverage

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description aligns with them while adding behavioral context: it counts specific categories and returns recommendations that convert detection gaps into actionable onboarding steps. This output-behavior detail goes beyond what annotations provide, with no contradiction.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads what the tool counts, the second explains its output value proposition. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and satisfies it by stating a prioritized gap list with onboarding recommendations. It covers scope (portal audit), the counted elements, and output format; the only minor omissions are granularity or behavior details of the gap list, which are not critical for a read-only audit with one optional param.

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 fully documents the single group_id parameter (scope to a device group, omit for portal-wide). The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond confirming it is a portal-scoped audit, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource — a portal audit that counts UPS/PDU onboarding, interface DataSources, SNMP credentials, and NetFlow exporters. It enumerates exactly what is measured and what is returned (a prioritized gap list), making it unambiguous and clearly distinct from the large sibling set, none of which perform this coverage assessment.

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 usage context is implied but not explicit: an audit that produces onboarding recommendations suggests it is meant for assessing monitoring readiness or gap identification, but the description never states when to use it versus related analysis tools like portal_overview, health_check, or diagnose, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.

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