vm_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It declares the tool as a read ([READ]) but does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple get, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 [READ] prefix and efficient structure. It includes a brief overview and parameter descriptions with no unnecessary words.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return fields adequately for a simple get operation. However, without an output schema, it could elaborate on the response format or error handling.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning: vm_id is explained as 'VM uuid (see vm_list)' and target as 'Xen Orchestra target name from config; omit for the default.' This provides context beyond the schema's type and default.

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 for one VM by uuid and lists the details returned (state, host, OS, tools, tags). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like vm_list (which lists VMs) and vm_stats.

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 that it retrieves details for a single VM by uuid and references vm_list for obtaining the uuid. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the purpose is clear and distinct from siblings.

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