vibemk_get_service_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Show current status of a service' with no detail on what 'status' includes (e.g., state, output, performance), whether it requires specific permissions, or what the response format is. This is minimal disclosure for a read operation that could vary significantly.

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 very concise at two short phrases, with no fluff. However, it is under-specified and lacks structure that would help an agent, such as differentiating from similar tools. Conciseness is good, but it sacrifices useful context.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the response contains, potential error conditions, or how it differs from sibling status tools. None of that is present. Given the complexity (simple tool) it is still incomplete because the agent cannot anticipate the return format or scope of 'status'.

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 both parameters have descriptive names and descriptions ('Name of the host' and 'Service description'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not explain the expected format or any constraints, but the schema already does that adequately.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Get service status') and explicitly says 'Show current status of a service'. It is unambiguous about what it does, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like vibemk_get_host_status or vibemk_get_checkmk_services, which also deal with statuses.

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 alternatives. With many sibling tools (get_host_status, get_service_metrics, get_checkmk_services), an agent would have no basis to choose this one without opening schemas or trial and error. No exclusions or context are provided.

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