get_infra_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that unreachable components are listed with error notes rather than failing globally, which is valuable. However, it does not specify behavior if the VM itself does not exist, leaving a minor transparency gap.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage advice and behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is front-loaded.

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 has an output schema and one simple required parameter, the description covers purpose, usage priority, and error handling sufficiently. No critical information is missing for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already describes it. The description adds context that the VM name is defined in infra-mcp.yaml, linking to an external source, which enhances understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states it returns service statuses and database health for a named VM, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_service_status (single service) and get_db_status (database only) by offering a combined overview.

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?

Explicitly advises to call this first when diagnosing any VM-level issue, providing a clear usage priority. Also describes error behavior (unreachable services listed with notes instead of failing) which helps the agent decide when to use it.

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