check_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool checks status and lists fields, but does not mention read-only nature, cost implications, or response format. Adequate but minimal behavioral disclosure for a simple status check.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous words. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 simple status check tool with no output schema, the description covers the key outputs (state, IPs, region, type). Could mention whether results are per-instance or aggregated, but overall sufficient for typical use.

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 already describes 'instance_id' as 'Instance ID, name, or custom-server name' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameter, 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Check', resource 'any managed instance', and lists specific attributes (state, IPs, region, type). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like 'list_instances' or 'get_server_info' which may have different scopes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as 'get_server_info' or 'fleet_health_snapshot'. Usage context is only implied by the description itself, lacking any conditional or exclusionary cues.

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