impreza_vps_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly declares 'Read-only' and lists the data returned (power state, CPU, memory, disk, network, uptime), indicating no side effects. It does not discuss rate limits or authorization, but for a simple status check this is sufficient.

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 concise sentences: first states action and data returned, second provides prerequisite and safety note. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully enumerates returned fields (power state, CPU, memory, disk, network, uptime). It references the prerequisite tool and is self-contained for a simple read operation.

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 sole parameter 'service_id' is described in the input schema with a note to get it from 'impreza_list_services'. The tool description reiterates this context, adding value beyond the schema by clarifying how to obtain the value.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Proxmox VPS's live power state + resource usage'), specifying exact metrics (CPU, memory, disk, network, uptime). It distinguishes from siblings like 'impreza_vps_power' which controls power, and 'impreza_list_services' which lists services but not status.

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 explicitly instructs to find the service_id via 'impreza_list_services' and notes the tool is read-only, implying safe usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

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