qemu_qmp

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: this is an untyped pass-through whose behavior depends entirely on the caller-supplied command and its arguments, and the command grammar lives in an external reference. It still omits what state can be corrupted or whether errors are surfaced, so a 3 is warranted.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the framing ('Escape hatch') before the examples. Every element earns its place, though the trailing 'See the QEMU QMP reference' is a pointer rather than substantive guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a maximally generic destructive tool, though, the description should steer the agent toward dedicated siblings first and note that arbitrary commands can alter or break VM state — neither is present, and one required parameter goes unexplained.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it only partly does. It clarifies that 'command' is a QMP command name and that arguments are command-specific ('commands and their arguments'), but the required 'name' parameter is never explained as the VM identifier, leaving a required parameter ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('run a raw QMP command on the VM') and frames it as an 'escape hatch', which distinguishes it from the typed siblings like qemu_pause or qemu_snapshot_save. Example commands (query-status, system_reset, memsave, device_add) make the scope concrete, though it never names the siblings it substitutes for.

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 word 'escape hatch' implies usage in cases the dedicated tools don't cover, and the pointer to the QEMU QMP reference implies the agent must look up syntax externally. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer a typed sibling tool over this one, nor any exclusion or warning about conditions where it should not be used.

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