get_power_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds that bulk targets are supported and that the returned state is On/Off, which is useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about missing/invalid targets or partial failures.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and return values front-loaded, no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than overly long, which is the better failure mode here.

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 simple read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description plus structured fields are nearly sufficient; the On/Off return values and multi-target scope are disclosed. Only edge-case behavior (unknown targets, empty results) is left unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100% and the targets parameter already documents the 'all' default and the 'tag:<tag>' syntax in the schema. The description's 'one or many servers' only loosely restates that capability, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the 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?

States a specific resource (power state) and its return values (On/Off), with the added scope of one or many servers. That is enough to separate it from read-only siblings like get_health or get_inventory, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives or companion tools (e.g. list_targets for discovering valid target names). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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