VPS incident summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses determinism, local evidence, the shared session-history side effect (counts as one observation), the output categories, fixed limitations, and explicit no-mutation/no-shell/no-SSH/no-network/no-secrets guarantees.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent sentence adds necessary context: output categories, side effects, scope limits, input constraint, and safety guarantees. Dense but not wasteful.

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 compositional tool with an output schema, this describes the semantic composition, return categories, side-effect coupling, and non-observations fully. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

There are zero parameters, and the description still clarifies that the input must be exactly {}, reinforcing the schema's empty-object contract. This is more than the schema alone provides and removes any temptation to pass arguments.

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 uses a specific verb ('combines') and resource ('VPS') and states the deliverable: NORMAL, ATTENTION, or UNKNOWN with factual notes. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly excluding applications, services, containers, deployments, and logs, making its scope unmistakable.

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?

Clear context is provided: use this for a deterministic composition of health, capacity, and change observations on a VPS right now, not for root-cause claims. It gives exclusions (no apps/services/containers/deployments/logs), though it does not explicitly name which sibling should be used instead.

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