boxes.capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description alone must reveal behavioral traits. 'Report' implies a read-only observation, but the optional probeQmp and probeSpice flags suggest active probing behavior that is never disclosed. The description does not say whether probing causes side effects, requires guest cooperation, or changes the result set.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It conveys the core operation efficiently, though it omits detail that would make it more informative.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented probe parameters, one sentence is not enough context. It does not clarify what capabilities are reported, what probing does, what the output looks like, or what happens if the VM is not running.

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 only 33%, and the description adds no information about probeQmp, probeSpice, or how they affect the reported capabilities. The two probe parameters remain semantically unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 says 'Report observed display and interaction capability state for a running VM', which names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like boxes.keyboard or boxes.display, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'for a running VM' implies this tool is used to inspect capabilities of an active VM, and the purpose is reasonably inferable. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to siblings such as boxes.info or boxes.display.

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