mist_get_sle_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., time bounds, caching, pagination). It merely restates what the tool returns, which is expected.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes key metrics. Every word adds value with no fluff.

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?

With an output schema present (as indicated by context), the description sufficiently covers the return type (SLE summary with listed metrics). It could optionally mention additional details like time range, but is otherwise complete for a read tool.

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% and the schema already describes parameters adequately (org, site_id). The description does not add extra meaning beyond stating 'for a site', which is redundant given the site_id parameter.

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 action (Get) and resource (SLE summary for a specific site), listing specific metrics (throughput, latency, coverage, capacity). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mist_get_device_stats and mist_get_client_stats by focusing on SLE 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when SLE summary is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It does not differentiate from sibling tools in terms of usage context.

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