VPS Health Check

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the metrics returned, the instance behavior, and the audit note for reveal parameter. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide essential usage details. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description compensates by listing the metrics returned. Parameter details are thorough. It provides enough context for correct invocation given the parameter count and sibling context.

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% with descriptions for both 'reveal' and 'instance'. The description adds critical context: default instance, the mismatch warning, and the audit note for reveal, enriching beyond 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?

The description explicitly states 'Get a comprehensive health snapshot' and lists specific metrics (uptime, CPU load, memory usage, etc.), making the tool's purpose clear and distinguishing it from sibling tools like vps_docker_ps or vps_docker_stats.

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 description mentions default target (Hetzner prod) and how to switch to dev instance. It also warns about mismatched routing for Coolify-managed containers. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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