analyze-site-health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns device status, WAN info, and reboot detection, suggesting a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences (16 words). It front-loads the verb and resource, and every sentence adds value: first states what it does, second states what it returns. No redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately lists the return types (device status, WAN info, reboot detection). It lacks details on structure or pagination, but for a simple health check tool with two parameters, it is sufficient for selection.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only uses the 'name' parameter as an example. The 'extractFields' parameter is not mentioned, but its schema description already provides usage guidance.

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 'Analyze', the resource 'site health', and specifies the output includes device status, WAN info, and reboot detection. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-sites' or 'site-health-timeline' by focusing on a single site's health.

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 when analyzing a specific site's health, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like 'compare-sites' or 'site-health-timeline'. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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