Get VM

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the fields the response carries and by noting the SSH access convention (default user 'cloud' at the public IP), which an agent could not derive from structured fields. It stops short of describing behavior for a nonexistent or deleted VM ID.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, and no filler. The SSH sentence is slightly tangential to the retrieval operation itself, but it is short and practically useful, so it earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, little else is required; only error/empty-result behavior is unaddressed.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as a UUID sourced from list_vms or create_vm. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one virtual machine by ID') and enumerates the returned facets (status, specs, IP address, network, image details). This clearly separates it from the sibling list_vms, which returns many VMs, without the agent needing to open the schema.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_vms or get_vm_metrics; the singular-vs-list distinction must be inferred from the wording. The only hint about sourcing the ID lives in the schema, not the description, and the second sentence addresses SSH login rather than tool selection.

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