get_vps_status

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already clear. The description adds value by specifying the returned categories (status, specs, live VM state/uptime, SSH access), helping the agent understand what to expect. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a simple read-only tool, this is sufficient.

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?

One focused sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by a concise list of content areas. 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description lists key data categories, which is adequate for the agent to understand the return content. It lacks explicit output structure, but for a straightforward status tool, this is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'service_id' described as 'VPS service id.' The description does not add further parameter context, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full detail for one VPS, listing specific content (status, specs, live VM state/uptime, SSH access). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_vps, which likely provides summary info for all VPS, and get_vps_metrics, which focuses on metrics.

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?

The description implies usage when detailed information about a specific VPS is needed, especially compared to list_vps for overview. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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