get_server_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature by using 'Get' and specifies it's for CIMC-managed servers, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps for an agent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by clarifying context. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete for a read-only summary tool. It covers purpose, scope, and data elements, but could improve by hinting at the return format or error cases to fully guide an agent.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by clarifying the scope ('CIMC-managed server') and output semantics, though it doesn't fully detail the return structure since there's no output schema.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'overall server status', specifying the exact data returned (power state, model, serial number, CPU/memory counts, operability) and distinguishing it as a 'single composite view' from more granular sibling tools like get_power_stats or get_inventory.

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 implies usage by stating it provides a 'single composite view' for overall status, suggesting it's for high-level monitoring rather than detailed diagnostics. However, it doesn't explicitly name when to use alternatives like get_server_health or get_faults for specific needs.

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