vm_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It marks the operation as [READ] and lists returned fields, which is sufficient for a simple get tool. It does not mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but for a read-only tool this is acceptable.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose with '[READ]' and uses a clean args list format. Every sentence is necessary.

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 no output schema, the description mentions fields returned but is incomplete. It does not describe the full return structure (e.g., object shape, nested fields). More detail about the response would improve completeness for a detail-fetching tool.

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 adds meaningful explanations: vm_id as VM uuid with a reference to vm_list, and target as the Xen Orchestra target name with default behavior. This adds value beyond the schema property titles.

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 a read operation for one VM by uuid, listing specific fields (state, host, OS, tools, tags). It distinguishes from vm_list which lists VMs and vm_stats for statistics.

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 an args list explaining vm_id and target, and references vm_list for obtaining the uuid. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vm_list or vm_stats, though context from sibling names implies it.

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