VPS / application problem signals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fully discloses behavior: deterministic, read-only, no shell/SSH/network probe/Docker socket/logs/secrets/LLM, no mutation, and no selection authority. It also details what it reports (normalized signal names, degraded/unknown/not-observable) and explicitly states correlation is not causation. This is exemplary transparency.

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 description is dense but efficiently front-loaded with the purpose question, then method, outputs, and constraints. It is longer than typical, but every sentence adds value given the lack of annotations and the need to set firm expectations. Some minor redundancy exists between 'SIGNALS, not root causes' and 'correlation is never presented as causation', but the structure is logical and scannable.

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?

This is a complex diagnostic tool with no annotations, an empty schema, and a rich behavioral profile. The description covers purpose, evidence sources, output signals, known limitations, prohibited actions, and input constraints. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are appropriately omitted. The tool is fully specified and an agent can invoke it without ambiguity.

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?

The schema already documents an empty parameter set with additionalProperties=false. The description reinforces this by stating input must be exactly {} and explains why (the agent can never select a host, application, container, or path). With zero parameters, this goes beyond the schema by clarifying the intent of the empty input, though it largely restates the schema constraint.

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 clear question ('Why does the currently configured VPS/application appear unhealthy?') and identifies a specific verb/resource: deterministic read-only diagnostic synthesis of existing evidence. It explicitly distinguishes itself from simpler health or capacity tools by emphasizing normalized signals and explicitly denies root-cause authority, making its role distinct among siblings.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: any time the agent needs a synthesized explanation for why the configured VPS/application appears unhealthy. It provides strong exclusions ('no recovery or deployment authority', 'SIGNALS, not root causes') that guide the agent away from expecting fixes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for deeper investigation, but the limitations make the decision boundary clear enough.

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