get_idps_status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (global_status, signature_version, last_signature_update, per-node counts) and the scope ('across all transport nodes'). No contradictions. Additional context like failure modes or rate limits is absent, but the annotations cover safety.

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?

Very concise, with a clear [READ] tag, a one-line purpose, a bullet list of return fields, and a single-line parameter description. No unnecessary words. Well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. However, it omits details about the 'target' parameter's effect and possible error conditions. Still, it provides enough for an AI agent to use 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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description explains the 'target' parameter as 'Optional NSX Manager target name from config', which adds minimal meaning. It does not clarify how the target affects the results or provide defaults. For a single optional parameter, more detail would help.

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 it 'gets the IDPS engine status across all transport nodes' and lists the specific return fields (global_status, signature_version, etc.). It uses a [READ] prefix to indicate a read operation. The tool is distinct from sibling tools which focus on DFW policies, groups, and traceflow.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, when not to use it, or contrast with other tools. It simply states the purpose.

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