vs_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by listing what data the tool returns (VIP, pool, health, connections, throughput), which is not present in annotations. 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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one sentence for prerequisite. Uses a [READ] tag to front-load the operation type. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description provides sufficient completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, usage prerequisite, and what data it returns. No missing context for a tool with one parameter and clear annotations.

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 has 0% description coverage (no description for the 'name' parameter in schema). The description compensates by stating 'name: Exact Virtual Service name.' This clarifies that the parameter must be the exact name, adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only specification.

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 explicitly states it shows detailed status for a specific Virtual Service, listing key attributes (VIP, pool, health, connections, throughput). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like vs_list (which lists VS names) by indicating it is for a specific VS.

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?

Provides clear guidance to 'Use vs_list first to find the exact VS name.' This helps the agent understand the prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternative tools.

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