get_transport_node_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds 'No side effects.' and details return fields (node_id, status, etc.) and error behavior (returns {"error","hint"} instead of raising). Adds significant context beyond 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?

Well-structured with sections (header, usage, returns, args). Front-loaded with '[READ]' and clear verb. A few extra details like BFD counters might be trimmed, but overall each sentence adds value. Slightly above average.

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?

Despite no output schema and low schema coverage, the description comprehensively explains return fields (node_id, status, control_connection_status, mgmt_connection_status, tunnel_status, pnic_status), error format, and prerequisites. Fully compensates for missing structured info.

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 0%, but the description explains both parameters: node_id as 'Transport node UUID, as returned by list_transport_nodes' and target as 'NSX Manager name from config.yaml. Uses the default target if omitted.' Provides meaning beyond the raw schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get realized runtime status' and clearly identifies resource as 'one transport node (ESXi host or Edge node)'. Differentiates from siblings like list_transport_nodes and get_edge_cluster_status.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use after list_transport_nodes (which supplies node IDs) when a node looks degraded or overlay tunnels are suspect; for cluster-wide edge health use get_edge_cluster_status instead.' Clearly states when to use and when not to.

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