Get VPS console access

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

The description discloses sensitive behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it warns that the response may contain a one-time console URL or session credential, instructs the agent to hand it only to the requesting user, forbids logging or repeating it, and notes that it expires. This is critical security context that annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) do not cover. It adds significant value and does not contradict any annotation.

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: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a necessary security warning. It is front-loaded with the core function and the sensitive warning earns its place. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the purpose and the key security behavior (sensitive, expiring credential). Given the simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, it is fairly complete. It doesn't describe the response format or error conditions, but these are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially since annotations already confirm it is read-only and idempotent.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (vpsId and userId) with 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-specific details. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 VNC console access details for a VPS'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ws_vps_list, ws_vps_get, and ws_vps_stats, which serve different purposes. The agent can immediately identify what this tool does and how it differs from the others.

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 clearly communicates the tool's purpose but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. However, the context is unambiguous: it's about VNC console access, which is unique among the siblings. The absence of explicit exclusions is a minor gap, but the tool's function is obvious enough that an agent can infer when to call it.

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