check_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose the returned data (state, IPs, region, type), which is useful. But it omits whether this is read-only, what permissions are required, and whether it works only for managed instances vs custom servers.

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 waste; the parenthetical efficiently enumerates return fields. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by listing the return fields. But with no annotations and many similar-sounding siblings, an agent lacks the routing and safety context needed to call it confidently.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single instance_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the account/name and custom/name formats. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource ("check status") plus the returned fields (state, IPs, region, type), so an agent knows what it gets. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like list_instances, get_server_info, or relay_status, which sound closely related.

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 context or alternatives are given. The phrase "any managed instance" hints at scope but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over list_instances or get_server_info.

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