model_is_sleeping

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses the three-valued return contract (true/false/null) and explicitly warns that null means UNKNOWN, not awake — a real trap for an agent. It also states the VLLM_SERVER_DEV_MODE=1 precondition and that other servers report the route as absent rather than failing vaguely, which is rich, non-obvious behavioral detail.

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?

Front-loaded with the read tag and core question, then return semantics, then the precondition, then args. No sentence is filler; the structure maps cleanly onto what an agent needs in order of priority.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by fully documenting the return values and their edge case. Combined with the dev-mode precondition and the param explanation, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single 'target' param, and it does: 'Inference target name from config; omit for the default.' That fully explains source and default behavior, though it adds no format or naming convention detail.

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 description opens with a specific read verb and resource: '[READ] Whether the vLLM engine is suspended in Sleep Mode.' The read framing and the query semantics clearly separate it from the mutation siblings model_sleep and model_wake, so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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 implied (check sleep state) but the description never states when to reach for this versus model_sleep/model_wake or as a precondition to waking. The dev-mode caveat is useful context but is a behavioral constraint rather than routing guidance.

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