vm_agent_ping

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

The description adds useful behavioral context (non-running agent returns responsive=False with explanation, not an error). Since no annotations are provided, this is valuable, but it does not disclose other traits like required permissions or side effects.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a brief purpose header, a behavioral note, and parameter descriptions. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers its purpose, behavior on failure, and parameter semantics. It does not detail response format, but for a ping check with no output schema, this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args:' section that explains each parameter: vmid is numeric, target is from config, node can be omitted for auto-location. This adds meaning beyond the schema's property names and types.

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 clearly states it is a read operation ('[READ]') that pings a VM's QEMU guest agent to check responsiveness. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vm_config or vm_start, which perform different actions.

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 provides context about when to use the tool (to check agent installation and responsiveness) and explains behavior when the agent is absent. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it.

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