site-health-timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Caveats[] surfaces partial-data and API limitations' but lacks specifics on what partial data, auth needs, or rate limits. Insufficient disclosure for a combined-data tool.

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 sentences: the first clearly states purpose and content, the second adds important caveats. No wasted words, front-loaded with key info.

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 combines multiple data points and has no output schema, the description should provide more detail on the response structure or caveats. It mentions partial-data limitations but remains vague.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'lookback window' for lookbackDays but does not explain extractFields or provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 it provides a per-site health snapshot combining devices, stability scores, reboots, WAN uptime, and optional client count, and distinguishes itself by noting it replaces 5+ sequential calls.

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?

It implies usage as a consolidated alternative to multiple calls, but does not explicitly specify when not to use it or provide direct comparisons with sibling tools like analyze-site-health or detect-recent-reboots.

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