vs_status

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral specifics beyond annotations: exact-name matching is required, a mismatch fails, and the response is one detail block, not a list. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the [READ] marker and the key purpose. Every sentence contributes either core semantics, a failure condition, or routing to alternatives, with no filler 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 single-parameter read tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, this description is complete. It covers prerequisite ordering, exact-match failure, the shape of the return (one block), and sibling tool routing, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the name parameter already has the description 'Exact Virtual Service name.' The tool description reinforces the exact-match requirement, but adds no new parameter format or syntax details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: detailed status for one Virtual Service including VIP, pool, health, connections, and throughput. It differentiates from siblings by noting it returns a single detail block rather than a list, and specifies that vs_analytics and vs_error_logs serve complementary purposes.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call vs_list first to obtain an exact name, warns that a non-exact name fails, and directs metrics to vs_analytics and 5xx to vs_error_logs. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance beyond what annotations provide.

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