get_tunnel_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it gets the status, without mentioning error handling (e.g., tunnel not found), required permissions, or the shape of the response. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) but the description does not specify what 'status' includes, what the return type is, or any failure modes. Since no annotations or output schema exist to fill these gaps, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'name' with description 'The tunnel name', and the description's phrase 'by name' confirms that connector. No additional meaning or constraints are provided beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Get the status of a single SSH tunnel by name' uses a specific verb ('get'), names the resource ('status of a single SSH tunnel'), and constrains by identifier ('by name'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tunnel_statuses or get_all_host_statuses by focusing on a single tunnel.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'single' implies use for one specific tunnel, but there is no mention of when not to use it, or that list_tunnel_statuses should be used for multiple tunnels. The description provides no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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