status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the categories of state returned, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only/side-effect free, whether it requires an active session, or whether it can fail when the host is powered off. Read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Report' but not declared.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumerated fields are informative rather than redundant. The list is slightly long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what state is available.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. The description adequately covers scope for a simple read tool; only the session/read-only behavioral context is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, and none is needed.

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?

States a specific verb (Report) and resource (KVM status), then enumerates exactly what is reported: firmware, HDMI/video signal, USB attachment, virtual media, keyboard LEDs, ATX LED state. This is clearly broader than the sibling usb_drive_status, though that differentiation is left implicit rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as usb_drive_status for narrower USB-only queries. The agent can infer that 'status' is a general health check, but nothing in the text routes it against siblings or states preconditions.

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