infomaniak_get_vps_full

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Manager-private' (a visibility/authorization caveat) and a detailed list of returned fields, but it does not discuss rate limits, errors, or pagination behavior. Given the existing annotations, this is solid supplementary context.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives a detailed but efficient enumeration of fields, followed by concise usage guidance. Every item in the list carries information, though the long comma-separated list makes it slightly dense; still, there is no wasted text.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to describe return values. It fully explains the tool's scope, the information provided, the prerequisite list operation, and an access restriction. For a one-parameter read-only detail tool, this is contextually 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?

The schema already documents `vps_id` with 100% coverage, including the instruction to discover it via `infomaniak_list_vps`. The tool description reinforces the sequencing but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 opens with 'Full VPS / Cloud Server detail' and enumerates the specific data returned, making the verb+resource+scope clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `infomaniak_list_vps` by framing itself as the drill-down companion tool.

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 explicitly states 'Use after `infomaniak_list_vps` to drill into one server,' giving a clear when-to-use instruction and relationship to a sibling. The 'Manager-private' note adds an access-role restriction, which further clarifies appropriate usage context.

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