vm_get

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is safe, so the "[READ]" prefix is largely redundant. However, the description adds genuinely new context by naming the returned detail fields (state, host, OS, tools, tags) — valuable since no output schema exists — and clarifies the target-resolution fallback to config default.

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 one-line summary followed by two tight arg lines; nothing is padded. The bracketed "[READ]" tag is the only element that doesn't earn its place since the annotation already covers it.

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?

For a single-object read with a 2-param schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and the shape of the return payload. It stops short of describing not-found behavior or target-resolution errors, which an agent would need in edge cases.

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 carries the full burden and does so: vm_id is defined as the VM uuid with a pointer to vm_list, and target is defined as the Xen Orchestra target name from config with explicit omit-for-default behavior. It doesn't specify uuid format or what an unknown target does, keeping it short of a 5.

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 and resource ("Detail for one VM by uuid") and even enumerates the fields the detail covers (state, host, OS, tools, tags). It explicitly cross-references the sibling vm_list for obtaining the uuid, making it distinguishable from vm_list, vm_stats, and vm_health_rca at a glance.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: "see vm_list" tells the agent where the id comes from, and the target param explains omission falls back to the default. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus vm_stats or vm_health_rca, which also operate on a single VM.

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