health_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it aggregates sessions, machines, and pools into a compact status, which is valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction exists.

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?

Three concise sentences plus an Args block; every sentence earns its place. The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description clearly states what the tool returns (session totals, problem machines, pool availability) and points to complementary tools for deeper investigation. It is complete for the tool's intended one-glance summary role.

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?

The only parameter, 'target', is documented in the description: 'Horizon target from config.yaml; omit to use the default.' This compensates fully for the schema's 0% description coverage and gives the agent exactly what it needs to use the parameter correctly.

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?

Description opens with '[READ] One-glance Horizon VDI health' and specifies the output categories: session totals by state, problem machines, pool availability. It clearly positions itself as the first-stop health summary and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like machine_list and session_list.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'The first thing to call for "how is VDI right now?"' and provides alternatives for drill-down: 'Drill into problems with machine_list --state or session_list.' This gives the agent clear decision rules.

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