get_instance_status

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the detection mechanism ('javaw command-line match'). It says nothing about what happens if the instance doesn't exist, how many log lines are returned, or whether the call is cheap/safe.

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?

Extremely short, but it is an under-specified phrase rather than an economical sentence. There is no front-loaded statement of the action performed, so terseness costs clarity 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter, the description should describe the shape of the status result (e.g. what states are possible, how many log lines). It does not, leaving the agent unable to predict return values or failure modes.

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 single required 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it. It is left ambiguous whether 'id' is an instance id, a display name, or something else.

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 is a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, but it does enumerate the three things returned: running state, log presence, and last log lines. Partial differentiation from siblings emerges because it bundles status with log info rather than being a pure log reader like tail_log, but the agent must infer the 'get status of instance X' framing from the name alone.

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 guidance on when to use this versus get_instance, diagnose_instance, or tail_log, which all overlap. The agent must guess whether this is a lightweight liveness check or a log inspection tool.

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