get_control_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and says the result is a device count, but it does not clarify authorization requirements, whether the count reflects connected devices or configured devices, error behavior, or other operational traits.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated information. It is appropriately terse, though its brevity contributes to the sibling ambiguity noted elsewhere.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, complete parameter schema coverage, and no output schema. The description states the return subject (device count) but leaves 'control plane summary' underspecified and offers no behavioral context, which is a noticeable gap given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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%; the single required parameter device_id is documented in the schema as 'Device ID or system-ip'. The description only adds the phrase 'for a device' and does not extend parameter semantics meaningfully beyond the schema.

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 a control plane summary for a device, with the parenthetical clarifying that it returns a device count. The purpose is understandable without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as get_control_count or get_control_network_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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus semantically close siblings like get_control_count, get_control_status, or get_control_network_summary. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the name and is not told when this tool is inappropriate.

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