kvm_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation implicitly via 'read tier' and lists the state components, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe the return format or potential errors.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core information and avoids redundancy. It is well-structured and directly to the point.

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 description is sufficiently complete for a simple status query with no parameters. It lists the specific state aspects covered, though it could slightly improve by explicitly stating that it returns the current state (e.g., 'reports the current...').

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter-related information. Since there are no parameters to explain, this meets the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: reporting the online, HDMI, resolution, and HID state of the active device, plus ATX where wired. The 'read tier' suffix distinguishes it from the action-oriented sibling tools.

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 a minimal usage hint ('read tier') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the siblings (e.g., 'use this to check status rather than perform actions'). An agent must infer from the sibling names.

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