nanokvm_led_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the return format (a dictionary with 'pwr' and 'hdd' booleans) and the meaning of each field, which helps the agent understand what to expect. It also implies a read-only operation via 'Get,' though it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or prerequisites.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a 'Returns:' section with clear bullet points. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff 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?

For a simple status tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers the essential context: what the tool does, what it returns, and how to interpret the result. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. There is nothing to clarify beyond what the empty schema already indicates.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('power and HDD LED status'), clearly stating the tool's function. It is distinct from sibling tools like nanokvm_power (which controls power) and nanokvm_hdmi_status (which checks HDMI), so it clearly differentiates its purpose.

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 usage for checking machine power and disk activity but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nanokvm_info or nanokvm_power. There are no exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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