appliance_status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but description adds critical behavioral context: load sits at ~10 even when idle due to driver parking threads in D-state, so it is NOT a health signal. This goes beyond annotations and prevents misuse.

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?

Description is concise yet comprehensive: front-loaded with 'Read-only diagnostics', then specifies target, output, and a critical caveat. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 diagnostics tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently describes what it reports (1-minute load and D-state threads) and provides caveats. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the output format (e.g., numeric values vs. human-readable text), but the core usage context is complete.

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 is one optional 'profile' parameter with no schema description (0% coverage). The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving its purpose and accepted values unexplained. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Reports' and clearly identifies the resource (KVM appliance's own OS over SSH) and scope (appliance_ssh channel, not managed target). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating it targets the appliance itself, not the managed target.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use this tool as a health signal and points to an alternative: 'use the healthcheck encoder-wedge finding for the real tell.' Also clarifies it targets the appliance, not the managed target, giving clear context.

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