vm_agent_ping

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing that an absent or non-running agent returns responsive=False with an explanation rather than raising an error. It does not mention timeouts or any auth/prerequisite needs, keeping it short of a 5.

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 [READ] tag, then purpose, then the non-obvious error-handling behavior, then Args. Every sentence carries information and there is no padding.

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 takes on return-value explanation and does cover the failure shape (responsive=False with explanation). It stops short of describing the success shape (responsive=True payload, other fields returned) and timeout semantics, which would fully close the gap.

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, and it does: vmid (numeric Proxmox VM id), target (Proxmox target name from config), and node with a meaningful default behavior ('omit to auto-locate the VM'). Minor gap: no format/constraint details for target or vmid ranges.

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 (ping), a specific resource (the VM's QEMU guest agent), and the exact intent (check it is installed and responsive). No sibling in the list covers guest-agent probing, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 purpose implies when it is useful (verifying the agent before guest-level operations), and the note about non-running agents returning responsive=False hints at expected usage. However, it names no explicit when-to-use trigger or alternative tool for related checks (e.g. guest_health_rca), leaving routing to inference.

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