vegas_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that the tool targets live instances but says nothing about return contents, whether it is read-only, error behavior when no instance is live, or authentication needs. Only the pid conditionality adds behavioral information.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core capability stated first and the parameter caveat second. Every clause 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to explain what an instance listing or inspection returns and what state is required for success. It is adequate for invocation but leaves the agent guessing about results and failure modes.

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 has 0% description coverage for vegas_pid (bare integer with exclusiveMinimum 0). The description compensates well by explaining what the pid means and exactly when it should be supplied, which is the key ambiguity for a single optional parameter.

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?

Specific verbs (list, inspect) paired with a precise resource: live VEGAS Pro 2026 connector instances. This clearly separates it from siblings like vegas_project or vegas_timeline, which act on editing domains rather than connector discovery.

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 the tool is used to enumerate or inspect live connector instances, and it gives one conditional rule for the parameter (pass vegas_pid only when multiple copies are open). It does not say when to prefer this over siblings or state prerequisites such as VEGAS needing to be running.

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