analyze-site-health

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which cover safety and partial result disclosure. The description adds specific return fields but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or data freshness. No contradiction with 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?

Single sentence, directly states purpose and returns. No filler, perfectly front-loaded with action verb. Every word earns its place.

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 simple health check tool with two parameters and existing annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns and an example. It does not describe output format or pagination, but openWorldHint acknowledges potential partial results. Adequate for the simplicity level.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'health of a specific site', and lists specific return fields (device status, WAN info, reboot detection). It gives an example ('USM') and distinguishes from siblings like 'compare-sites' or 'summarize-site' by focusing on immediate health status rather than comparison or summary.

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?

No explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool. The description implies usage for checking health of a single site but does not contrast with alternatives like 'compare-sites' or 'site-health-timeline'. Lacks conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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