CHAP status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned content (enrollment state, pair info, sync status, per-part state, and an `actions` field describing what can be done now) — important since no output schema exists. It omits permissions/auth requirements and error behavior.

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?

It is a single dense sentence loaded with nested parentheticals, which makes it harder to parse than necessary, though there is little outright filler. Front-loading the subject ('How CHAP stands for an instance') is fine but the comma-spliced enumeration of return fields hurts readability.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned structure in detail, which is exactly what an agent needs. Missing only guidance on error cases or preconditions, which are minor here.

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 100% and the single instance_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 conveys a specific resource — the CHAP status of an instance — and enumerates what it reports (enrollment, pair composition, sync state, per-part state, available actions). It is distinguishable from the vomehome_chap_* action siblings (enrol, pair, switch, link_standby) which mutate state, though it never names them 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?

Usage is only implied: the mention that 'Asked of a standby, it says which main install it belongs to' gives a contextual nuance but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus siblings like vomehome_chap_pair or vomehome_chap_switch. An agent can infer it is the read/inspection tool but gets no routing guidance.

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