vm_config

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

The [READ] tag indicates a read-only operation, but without annotations the description carries full burden. It could be more explicit about safety or permission requirements. It does not disclose any side effects or additional behavioral traits.

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 with a front-loaded purpose sentence and a clear parameter list. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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?

Considering no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and the purpose of each parameter. It does not cover error cases or return format but is sufficient for a straightforward read operation.

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?

The description adds clear and detailed meaning to all three parameters beyond the raw schema. It explains vmid as numeric ID, target as config name, and node location logic. This fully compensates for 0% schema coverage.

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 returns a VM's config with specific fields (cores, memory, ostype, boot order). The [READ] prefix adds clarity. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'vm_get', which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vm_get' or 'vm_list'. The description explains parameters but lacks when/when-not usage context.

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