vm_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the '[READ]' prefix is partly redundant. The description adds that stats are 'current' (i.e. live, not historical), which is mild behavioral context, but says nothing about freshness, rate limits, permissions, or failure modes.

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 outcome, then a compact Args block; every sentence carries information and there is no filler. Slightly terse on vm_id but appropriately sized for a two-parameter read tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the metrics and noting 'with units'. What remains missing is the concrete response shape/format and any indication of whether values are instantaneous or averaged.

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 does explain target meaningfully ('Engine target name from config; omit to use the default'), which goes beyond the bare schema title 'Target'. But vm_id is only restated as 'VM id' with no format or source guidance, leaving one of two params essentially undocumented.

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+resource (read a VM's current statistics) and enumerates the returned metrics (memory, CPU %, network, disk), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not differentiate itself from the nearby vm_get or vm_health_rca siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 '[READ]' tag and 'current statistics' framing imply a monitoring/observation use case, and the target arg note ('omit to use the default') gives some operational guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus vm_get or vm_health_rca, and no stated prerequisites.

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