vibemk_get_host_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show current monitoring status' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify what the response contains, whether it reflects live data, or how errors for unknown hosts are handled. Minimal information beyond the name itself.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose effectively. However, it is so brief that it may be under-specifying for the agent's needs, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.

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 simplicity (one parameter) but the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what 'status' includes (e.g., up/down, metrics, problems) and how it differs from similar tools. This is missing, leaving the agent uncertain about expected results and differentiation from siblings.

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% (host_name has a description). The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, so it relies entirely on the schema. Per the rubric, a high coverage baseline of 3 applies, and no additional context is provided.

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 it gets the current monitoring status of a specific host, using the verb 'Get' with a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_host_details or get_host_config by focusing on monitoring status, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 the many sibling host-related tools (e.g., get_host_details, get_service_status). No conditions, exclusions, or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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