bare_metal_get_bare_metal_bandwidth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by explaining "Smart identifier resolution" and listing accepted identifier types (label, hostname, UUID), and it notes that the return value is bandwidth usage information. However, it does not disclose units, time ranges, authentication needs, or any side effects, though "Get" implies a read-only operation.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by identifier resolution guidance and a Returns section. There is minor redundancy between the opening sentence and the Returns section, but overall every element 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 one-parameter read-style tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential operational knowledge: what the tool does, what identifier forms are accepted, and what kind of result to expect. It does not describe bandwidth measurement period or units, but the output schema can carry that detail.

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 only says server_identifier is a string, but the description adds rich meaning: it can be a server label, hostname, UUID, or ID. This directly compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and gives an agent enough information to supply a valid value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Get bandwidth usage for a bare metal server." It is clear enough to be distinguished from sibling tools like bare_metal_get_bare_metal_server or instance_get_bandwidth, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. The additional detail about smart identifier resolution adds specificity without muddying the core 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as instance_get_bandwidth or bare_metal_get_bare_metal_server. The description explains what identifiers can be passed, but not the conditions that would make this tool the right choice over its siblings.

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