capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that this aggregates several categories (runtime, CLI capabilities, native MCP tools, bridges), which is helpful behavioral context, but does not state whether the discovery is cheap/cached, whether it reflects live or static state, or how results are structured.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists contents. No waste, though the enumerated list is dense.

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 zero-param read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what it will return at a high level, which is adequate. However, without an output schema or annotations, it could be more complete about the shape/format of the returned information.

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?

Zero parameters, so no parameter semantics are needed. The baseline for a no-param tool is 4.

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 clear verb ('Discover') and resource ('VM execution environment') and enumerates the four things it returns. It is distinct from siblings, though 'agent_capabilities' nearby overlaps somewhat in naming and the distinction isn't explicitly drawn.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus command_info, agent_capabilities, or mcp_bridge_status, all of which plausibly overlap. The agent is left to infer usage context entirely.

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