get_omp_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about return content, whether the device must be reachable, or whether this is a live query vs cached data. Only the device scoping is implied.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words, but that brevity is achieved through under-specification rather than tight editing. There is nothing front-loaded because there is nothing substantive to front-load.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description needed to explain what the summary contains and how it relates to the dense OMP sibling set. For a domain-jargon tool in a large tool family, this is 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 required parameter device_id is documented as 'Device ID or system-ip'. The description adds no additional meaning, which is acceptable at full schema coverage (baseline 3).

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 sentence 'Get OMP summary for a device' essentially restates the tool name (get_omp_summary) and adds only that it is scoped to a device. It does not clarify what an OMP summary contains or how it differs from sibling tools like get_omp_status, get_omp_peers, or get_omp_routes.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the many related siblings (get_omp_status, get_omp_links, get_omp_peers, get_control_summary). An agent must guess which OMP or summary endpoint is appropriate.

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