get_power_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of behavioral value by naming the returned states (on/off), but says nothing about latency, freshness, or error behavior when the server is unreachable.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and result domain front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly telegraphic and lacks a closing period, but every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter, annotation-covered read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the shape of the answer. A brief note on failure cases (unreachable/unknown server) would make it fully complete, but nothing critical is missing.

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% for the single 'id' parameter ('Server ID'), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no further qualifier such as whether the ID is a numeric server identifier versus a hostname, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (server power status), plus the returned value domain (on/off), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from lookalike siblings such as get_server or get_network_status, which it could have done in a phrase.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives. Siblings like power_on, power_off, request_rh_power_on, and request_rh_power_off are close neighbors, and the description gives no cue about which to pick or any prerequisite (e.g., checking status before a power action).

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