vm_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It includes a '[READ]' tag indicating no side effects, and describes auto-location behavior for the node parameter. However, it does not describe the return format or fields, nor any auth requirements. Since a read operation is generally safe, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear structure: a heading tag '[READ]', a one-line purpose statement, and a bulleted argument list. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff. The front-loaded action and parameter descriptions are efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameters, and a behavioral note (auto-location). It also cross-references vm_list for obtaining a vmid. A minor gap is the lack of detail on what the returned status includes, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 add meaning. It describes each parameter: vmid as numeric Proxmox VM id (with reference to vm_list), target as target name from config, and node as node name with optional auto-locate. This provides semantic context beyond the schema's type and default values.

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 begins with '[READ]' and states 'Return current status detail for a single VM by vmid.', clearly indicating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vm_list (list all VMs) and vm_config (likely configuration) by focusing on a single VM status.

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 specifies the context: retrieving status for a single VM. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the parameter guidance (e.g., 'node: Node name; omit to auto-locate') provides implicit usage context. A slightly higher score would require explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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