infomaniak_nodejs_app_status

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable context: it is cheap and safe to poll, returns specific states, and requires SASESSION + CSRF cookies. These are behavioral traits not covered by annotations, making it highly transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and adds only essential extra information. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple status tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and authentication context. However, the lack of parameter guidance leaves a small but notable gap in completeness.

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 schema has zero parameter descriptions, and the description does not explain `hosting_id` or `vhost_route_id` at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description was responsible for providing parameter semantics but completely omitted them.

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 tool gets the live status of a Node.js application and explicitly lists the return values (`Running` or `Stopped`). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a Node.js application'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like `get_nodejs_app` or `nodejs_app_action`.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use it: 'Cheap call, safe to poll' suggests repeated status checking, and 'Manager-private' indicates access constraints. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the guidance implies it is the dedicated status polling tool.

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