instance_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that with genuinely useful behavioral context: the caveat that no-GPU mode does not mean the GPU is mounted, and the explicit scope statement that passwords/SSH credentials are not returned. It does not cover permission or rate-limit behavior, but adds real value over the annotations.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the core action and returned fields come first, followed by two short caveats. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical byte-unit aside ('1024³ 字节') is more detail than an agent needs for invocation.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The remaining gap is usage context (when this beats list_instances), but for a single-parameter read tool with a documented output schema, what is provided is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single instance_uuid parameter, so the description must compensate. It only implies that the UUID identifies the target instance ('指定 UUID 的实例状态'), with no format, source, or lookup guidance (e.g., where to obtain the UUID), so compensation is partial.

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 gives a specific verb (查询/query) and resource (instance status and configuration specs) and enumerates exactly which fields are returned: GPU model, per-card VRAM in GB, and allocated CPU cores. This is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart from job_status and list_instances without opening a schema, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: no statement of when to call instance_status versus list_instances (which also surfaces instance information) or job_status. The description only says what it returns, leaving the selection decision entirely to inference from the UUID parameter.

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