qemu_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important operational fact that no VM is booted, meaning the call is cheap and has no side effects on running guests. It does not mention output format, but an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then rationale, in two short sentences with no filler. The line wrapping is slightly awkward and the phrase 'its own output' is a touch redundant, but nothing wastes the reader's time.

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?

This is a simple, single-optional-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The description covers what it does, when it is useful, and how arch relates to the rest of the toolset, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 meaning of 'arch', and it does partially: arch selects the qemu-system-<arch> binary, matching what qemu_boot would launch. However, it gives no hint at valid architecture values or the x86_64 default, leaving the agent to guess acceptable strings.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report qemu-system-<arch> --version's own output') and immediately bounds the scope with 'without booting a VM'. This clearly separates it from the sibling qemu_boot, which is the tool an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use scenario: diagnosing unexpected QMP command or machine type behavior by checking what is actually installed. It also links arch to 'the same qemu-system-<arch> binary qemu_boot would use.' No explicit when-not conditions are stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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