get_vps_smtp_status

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds an edge-case behavior: it returns {"supported": false} if the VPS node doesn't support the check. This is valuable context about a plausible failure mode. It also frames the result as a policy-driven status. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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?

One sentence contains the main purpose and the unsupported fallback. The embedded JSON is compact and front-loaded after the main point. Zero filler; every part 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 simple status read with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the returned boolean and the unsupported case. It does not discuss error handling, but given the read-only annotation and simple shape, this is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single vps_id parameter. It only says 'this VPS', which ties the vps_id to the tool subject but provides no additional syntax, format, or selection details. The schema already labels it 'Vps Id', so the description adds little new meaning.

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 tool's outcome: whether outbound SMTP ports are blocked on a VPS, and the unsupported fallback. It names a specific resource (VPS) and a specific feature (SMTP port status), which distinguishes it from the many get_vps_* status tools. It could be more explicit with a verb like 'Check if', but the function is unambiguous.

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 no guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings like get_vps_stats or get_vps_build_log. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or use cases. The phrase 'common anti-abuse policy' hints at a troubleshooting context, but it is not enough to guide tool selection.

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