get_transport_node_status

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format ('Returns one dict (not the list envelope)'), lists key fields (node_id, status, control_connection_status, mgmt_connection_status, tunnel_status, pnic_status), and notes it's point-in-time only. Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description reinforces and elaborates without contradiction.

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 well-structured with a heading, usage guidance, return details, and parameter descriptions. It is concise, with each sentence earning its place, and no unnecessary words.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral context, return fields, and parameter semantics thoroughly. It also provides troubleshooting guidance, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains node_id as 'Transport node UUID, as returned by list_transport_nodes' and target as 'NSX Manager target from config (default if omitted)', adding meaning beyond the schema's generic titles. A score of 4 acknowledges good coverage but could include more detail on target format.

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 'Get realized runtime status of one transport node (ESXi host or Edge node)' and uses the '[READ]' prefix to indicate a read operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('after list_transport_nodes when a node looks degraded or overlay tunnels are suspect'), when to use an alternative ('for cluster-wide edge health use get_edge_cluster_status instead'), and when not to (if tunnels are down on one segment, follow up with get_logical_port_status).

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