fleet_health_summary

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It fully describes the return content and implies a read-only operation ('Get'), which is accurate. It doesn't mention side effects or latency, but given it's a summary tool with no parameters, this is adequate. No contradiction with annotations (which are absent).

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the three key outputs. Every phrase carries meaning, 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?

Without an output schema, the description is responsible for conveying what the tool returns. It covers all essential elements (latest reading, averages, anomaly flags) and is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to use it. No gaps are apparent for a simple fleet-summary tool.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't. It correctly implies that no inputs are 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('fleet-wide snapshot'), and explicitly lists what it returns (latest reading per vehicle, fleet averages, active anomaly flags). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_vehicles and get_vehicle_telemetry which target individual entities.

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 for fleet-wide overviews without stating when not to use it. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly, but the clear scope makes it obvious this is the go-to for aggregated fleet health. A minor omission is the lack of explicit exclusions.

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