ntp_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds crucial context: it only reports configuration health, not live offset, and explains the implication of the healthy flag. No contradictions 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?

Description is extremely concise: a one-line title, a two-line summary, a one-line caveat, and two lines of parameter docs. Every sentence is necessary and well-organized, front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 the tool has only 2 optional parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides all necessary context: return fields, the healthy flag logic, and the limitation compared to live offset. Complete for a health check tool.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully bears the burden. It explains both parameters: host_name for filtering to a single host (None=all), and target for optional target name. This adds complete semantics beyond the bare 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 clearly states it is a read operation for per-host NTP configuration health, specifying the exact resource (NTP servers and ntpd service state) and what it returns (healthy flag). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like host_performance or get_host_sensors.

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?

Description explicitly states what the tool does ('returns configuration health') and what it does NOT do ('does not expose live clock offset/stratum'). It also provides an alternative method ('use esxcli on the host') for when the actual offset is needed.

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