trmm_fleet_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what the summary covers and positioning it as a problem-hunting entry point, without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Fleet health summary') before listing contents and usage. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only overview tool, the description provides enough detail about what is returned and when to use it. It does not enumerate every possible status, but that level of detail is unnecessary for a first-call triage tool and would reduce conciseness.

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 100% schema coverage, so the schema carries no burden. With no parameters to explain, the description's focus on output contents is sufficient.

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 identifies the resource (fleet) and the kind of information returned (agent counts by status, offline machines, reboot needs, failing checks, pending patches). It stops short of an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', but the meaning is unambiguous and it is clearly distinct from the per-agent sibling tools.

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 explicitly frames this as 'the best first call when hunting for problems', which gives strong usage context for triage. It does not name specific alternatives for follow-up detail, but the sibling names imply that per-agent tools are used after this overview.

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