appliance_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context beyond that: it operates over the appliance_ssh channel, not the managed host, reports specific OS-level diagnostics, and warns that idle load appears high due to driver-parked D-state threads.

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 definition is front-loaded with the target and purpose, then adds the metric details and the critical interpretation caveat. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the NOTE cleanly separates the health-signal warning.

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?

Given a simple read-only diagnostic tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value context and interpretation warning. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without additional inference.

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% for the single optional profile parameter, and the schema already explains the profile/config selection. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read-only diagnostics from the KVM appliance's own OS over SSH. It explicitly contrasts this with the managed target and names the specific metrics returned (1-minute load and RV1126 video-pipeline D-state threads), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like healthcheck and ssh_reachable.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: target the appliance itself, not the managed target, and use the healthcheck encoder-wedge finding for the real health tell because load is not a reliable health signal. This names an alternative and the condition that selects it.

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