get_idps_status

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

The description adds that it is a read operation and lists return fields, but annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds marginal value by specifying per-node status details.

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 concise (4 lines), front-loaded with '[READ]' and the main purpose, and no extraneous text. Every sentence contributes value.

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 has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description lists key return fields. It could be slightly more complete by noting the response structure, but for a read-only status tool it is adequate.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description explains the 'target' parameter as 'Optional NSX Manager target name from config.', which adds meaningful context for the agent. This compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get' and the resource 'IDPS engine status across all transport nodes', listing specific return fields. No sibling tool duplicates this purpose, making it unambiguous.

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?

The description mentions the optional 'target' parameter for specifying an NSX Manager, which implies usage context, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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