wan-uptime-trend

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses aggregation across all sites, severity flagging, and sorting order. However, it does not mention read-only nature or side effects; but given the context, it is likely safe. The description adds value beyond 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence captures the core action and key feature (severity flagging, default threshold), and the second specifies output ordering. Efficient and 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 single parameter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (per-WAN sorted by uptime). It is complete for an aggregate tool without missing behavioral details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates the threshold parameter's purpose, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool aggregates WAN uptime across all sites, flags severity with a default threshold, and returns per-WAN sorted by lowest uptime first. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze-site-health' which focus on individual site 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 the tool is for broad WAN overview with optional threshold adjustment, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get-isp-metrics' or 'analyze-site-health'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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