vibemk_get_discovery_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get' and 'Show', implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, or clarify whether it returns results from a background job, pending changes, or the current state of discovered services. This ambiguity is significant given the many discovery-related siblings.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The emoji adds a minor visual cue without clutter. It is concise and easy to parse quickly.

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 description is minimal for a tool that has several closely related siblings. It does not explain what 'discovery status' means, whether it refers to a background job or the latest discovery results, or what the output will look like. Since there is no output schema, this lack of context could lead to incorrect 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 already fully documents host_name with a clear description ('Host name to check discovery status'). The tool description adds no new semantic information about the parameter, only restating 'for a host'. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (get discovery status) and the resource (a host), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_service_discovery and get_bulk_discovery_status by focusing on current results for a single host. However, it could be more explicit about being non-bulk or what 'discovery status' entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many discovery-related siblings (e.g., start_service_discovery, get_bulk_discovery_status, wait_for_discovery). The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.

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