vm_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares the operation as a read and notes the ETag for downstream writes. No destructive or authentication details are needed for a simple get.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. No wasted words. The purpose is immediately clear, and parameter details follow efficiently.

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?

For a simple get operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary information: parameter sources, default behavior, and output (ETag). No gaps remain.

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 compensate. It explains 'vm_ext_id' as 'VM extId as returned by vm_list' and 'target' as config-based with default omit, adding context beyond just titles.

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 starts with '[READ]', clearly indicating a read operation. It specifies the resource (One VM) and the identifier (extId). It also mentions the ETag return, distinguishing it from listing or mutation tools.

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 explains the 'target' parameter usage and default behavior, providing context on when to omit it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like vm_list or vm_update, but the read operation is self-explanatory.

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