VPS health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does this well. It states the operation is deterministic, read-only, local-only, and free of mutation, shell, SSH, network, and secrets. This gives the agent a precise and trustworthy safety profile.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The question front-loads the purpose, the verdict and evidence source are stated precisely, and the constraints are packed into a single clear list. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, input format, safety, and scope. The only minor omission is an explicit pointer to the sibling capacity tool, but that is not necessary for correctly invoking this tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, but the description adds explicit clarity by stating 'Input must be exactly {}.' This removes any ambiguity about whether an empty body or no body is expected, which is the only possible parameter-semantics concern for this tool.

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 is explicit about what the tool does: it returns a deterministic read-only verdict (HEALTHY | DEGRADED | UNKNOWN) based on local OS evidence. This clearly identifies it as a VPS health check, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling engineering.vps.capacity tool.

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 opening question 'Is my VPS healthy?' provides a clear context for use, and the constraints 'No mutation, no shell, no SSH, no network, no secrets' give the agent strong usage boundaries. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over engineering.vps.capacity or state any explicit alternatives.

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