skypilot_serve_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is already covered. The description adds the returned fields (names, statuses, replica counts, endpoint URLs), but since an output schema exists, this is partly redundant; no pagination, freshness, or error behavior is disclosed.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the filter default placed last. No filler, though the 'and more' phrasing is vague.

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 read-only status tool with an output schema present, the definition covers the action, the filter default, and the return shape adequately. Only cross-tool routing and pagination/edge-case behavior are unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single parameter. It explains that service_names acts as a filter and that omitting it returns all services, adding meaning beyond the bare anyOf/null schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the status of services'), so an agent immediately understands the operation. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling status tools like skypilot_pool_status or skypilot_api_status, nor from serve siblings like skypilot_serve_logs.

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 clause 'If no service_names provided, returns all services' implies the filtering use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., when to check serve_status vs serve_logs vs cluster_status). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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