infomaniak_nodejs_app_status

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds valuable context: 'Cheap call, safe to poll' and auth requirements, providing insight beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded purpose: first sentence states goal, second adds usage/behavior, third adds auth. No wasted words.

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?

Output schema exists so return format is covered. Description lacks parameter explanations, which is a gap. However, for a simple status check tool, the context is mostly sufficient except for parameter semantics.

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 coverage 0% means description must explain parameters, but it does not. The two required parameters (hosting_id, vhost_route_id) are not described. Agent must infer from context or external knowledge.

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?

Clear statement: 'Get the live status of a Node.js application — Running or Stopped.' Specific verb and resource with explicit output. Distinguishes from sibling tools like infomaniak_nodejs_app_action (state change) and infomaniak_list_nodejs_apps (listing).

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 'Cheap call, safe to poll' indicating low cost and suitability for frequent checks. Also mentions auth requirements ('Manager-private — requires SASESSION + CSRF cookies'). No explicit when-not-to-use but contextually clear.

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