diagnose_vps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It says 'compact' (implying non-destructive, quick), but does not specify if it runs multiple commands, requires elevated privileges, or has side effects on the system. For a diagnostic tool with many sibling alternatives, more disclosure would be helpful.

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 efficiently conveys the purpose and scope. Every word serves a purpose; no filler.

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?

Given no parameters, a comprehensive output schema, and many sibling tools, the description adequately describes the tool's purpose. It could be enhanced by hinting at what the output looks like (e.g., 'returns a summary table'), but is largely sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke this tool over its siblings.

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 input schema has no parameters (0 params), so the baseline is 4. The description does not add param info, but none is needed. It clearly states the scope of the check.

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 states the verb ('Run') and resource ('VPS health check') and lists the specific areas covered: resources, disk, systemd, and Docker. This effectively distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that focus on individual aspects like Docker commands, system_info, disk_usage, or systemd_failed.

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 implies this is for a quick health overview of a VPS, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., when would you prefer this over system_info or diagnostic_command). There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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