cvcue_ap_health_summary

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it conveys read-only intent implicitly through "summary/rollup" and by disclosing the categories of diagnostics returned (crashes, low power, tunnels down, config errors). It does not state whether data is live or periodically sampled, what permissions are needed, or how an unscoped call behaves, which are meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single sentence (with list) that front-loads the tool's identity and then packs the return contents densely; every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 correctly takes on the duty of describing return contents, and it does so thoroughly across counts, breakdowns, and problem lists. The only shortfall is the unstated default scope when location_id is null and no note on data freshness.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents itself as "Scope to a location subtree." The description adds no syntax, ID format, or subtree-depth semantics, and notably does not say that omitting location_id yields the whole fleet, which is the one piece of meaning the schema leaves implicit.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Fleet health rollup for managed APs") and then enumerates exactly what the rollup contains: online/offline counts, model and firmware breakdowns, upgrade/config-push status, offline APs, and problematic APs. The AP scope plus the enumerated payload content distinguish it cleanly from siblings such as cvcue_network_health and cvcue_client_health_summary without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word "rollup" and the fleet-wide framing, which suggests an aggregate overview rather than per-device detail. There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus cvcue_list_aps for raw AP data or cvcue_network_health for a broader network view, and no exclusions are stated.

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