get_site_health_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It identifies this as a read-only retrieval operation, but does not disclose behaviors such as required permissions, latency, possible errors for invalid site names/IDs, or what the response contains beyond the brief list. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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: the first states the operation and outputs, and the second defines the single parameter. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 is a simple single-parameter read operation with no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for basic use. However, it lacks guidance on how to handle site lookup failures, what the output structure contains, and how this differs from related summary tools. These are notable omissions for a tool that must be invoked accurately among many siblings.

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 schema has only one parameter, 'site', and its format is just 'string'. The description adds meaning by stating 'site name or ID', which clarifies accepted values beyond the raw schema. However, it does not provide additional detail such as whether IDs are numeric/UUID or how partial/ambiguous names are handled, so there is a baseline moderate contribution.

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 specifies the action (get health summary) and resource (a single site), and enumerates the returned data: uptime, alerts, and device counts. While it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_site_statistics or get_fleet_summary, the stated scope of 'single site' and the listed content provide adequate clarity.

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 when to use it by specifying that it operates on a single site and listing the summary contents, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_site_statistics or get_fleet_summary. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools for broader/multi-site queries.

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