get_omp_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden; it does convey that this is a read-only aggregate count scoped to the whole fabric, which is the key behavioral fact. It says nothing about data freshness, snapshot vs. live timing, or how the up/down tally is computed, which matters for a status counter an agent may report as ground truth.

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 the scope qualifier first and the return shape second; nothing is redundant. Its only weakness is terseness, not verbosity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does state the shape of the return (up/down status counts) and the scope (fabric-wide), which is close to sufficient for a zero-parameter read. Missing only freshness/timing context that would let an agent interpret the counts confidently.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is complete by definition and the description has no parameter semantics to add. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (OMP peering up/down status counts) and states its scope (fabric-wide), so an agent can tell it returns an aggregate count rather than peer detail. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling to prefer for per-peer detail (get_omp_peers) or for the broader rollup (get_omp_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 phrase '(dashboard view)' faintly implies a quick summary use case, but there is no statement of when to choose this over get_omp_peers, get_omp_summary, or get_control_status, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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