get_container_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned: running/stopped status, CPU, and memory. This goes beyond the annotations, providing context about the output content.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and purpose. Every word is necessary; no wasted text. It efficiently conveys the tool's function and key outputs.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, simple read operation) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. It is complete for an agent to understand tool usage.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (node and vmid). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'runtime status of an LXC container' with key data points (running/stopped, CPU, memory). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_container_config (which returns config details) and list_containers (which lists containers, not status).

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 by stating what it returns, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, when not to use it, or prerequisites. For example, it does not mention that this tool is for LXC containers only, not VMs, which could be inferred from sibling names but not stated.

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