Get guest agent status

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds substantial semantics beyond that: what 'Unknown' means (advisory, not proof of failure), what 'unavailable' gates, per-platform probe mechanics (QEMU agent vs worker-reported health), a limitation on Windows PowerShell/RDP verification, and the required services:read scope.

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?

Five sentences, each carrying distinct load, with purpose and platform scope front-loaded before the caveats. No redundancy or filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains how to interpret results (Unknown is advisory; unavailable gates only agent-dependent operations), lists per-platform behavior, and states the auth requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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% and the single orderNo parameter is fully documented in the schema (pattern, length, example). The description never mentions orderNo, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured field. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read guest-agent availability') and narrows scope to Cloud VPS (KVM/VDS) or Firecracker. It explicitly separates itself from application health and VM provisioning, so an agent can distinguish it from get_application_health without opening either schema.

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?

It tells the agent this is distinct from VM provisioning and application health, and notes that 'unavailable gates only operations that need the agent', which implies when the result matters. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool or giving a clear when-to-prefer-this condition.

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