overview_get_data

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full responsibility. It states the output is a mapping with team names and service details (host, port, passing status), implying a read-only retrieval. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but 'Get' and the content description offer reasonable transparency for a simple fetch operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description adequately conveys the return structure. However, it could be more explicit about data types or the exact shape of 'services' (e.g., list or dictionary) and the nature of 'passing status' (boolean or string). For a simple, parameterless tool, this is sufficient.

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 zero parameters and an empty schema. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description implicitly confirms no input is required.

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 'overview data', and specifies the content as 'mapping team names to services with host, port, and passing status.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like overview_get_round_data and overview_get_detailed_data by indicating it provides a per-team service status summary.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions or when to prefer overview_get_detailed_data for more detail.

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