get_control_count

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the aggregation itself. It does not say whether counts are a single total or a per-site/per-peer breakdown, whether results are cached or live, or anything about permissions or rates.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope (fabric-wide) precedes the optional narrowing. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic call but leaves the return shape ambiguous — 'counts' could mean one number or a structured breakdown. Minimal but not inadequate.

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 single parameter is already documented as 'Optional site ID'. The description adds one genuinely new semantic: omitting site_id yields fabric-wide counts rather than an error or empty result. That is useful but thin, keeping it at baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get ... control connection counts') plus a scope qualifier ('fabric-wide ... optionally for one site'). It implicitly separates itself from listing tools like get_control_connections by emphasizing aggregation, but it never names or contrasts a sibling such as get_control_statistics or get_network_connections_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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers 'call this when you want counts rather than a list' and 'pass site_id to narrow'. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives among the many get_control_* siblings.

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