get_power_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering side-effect freedom and non-deterministic output. The description adds 'current' and '(on/off)', reinforcing the live nature of the value. It does not discuss authentication or response format, but with annotations present, this is acceptable.

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 that conveys the tool's purpose and expected values with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and earns its place entirely.

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 read-only status tool with one documented parameter and annotations covering side effects, the description is nearly complete. It does not state the exact response structure, but the '(on/off)' phrase gives the key value domain. Minor gaps around error cases are tolerable given the low complexity.

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%: the 'id' parameter is documented as 'Server ID'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or context. The schema fully carries the semantic load, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('get') and resource ('power status') and clarifies the possible return values ('on/off'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like get_network_status or power_on/power_off by the resource it queries. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_server. However, the name and description make the intended use obvious: checking the current power state. The usage is implied but not elaborated with exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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