get_vm_feature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation with no side effects, but does not disclose permissions, errors, or return format. For a simple check, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 concise: one sentence explaining purpose, followed by brief parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words, front-loaded, and each sentence adds value.

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 simple check tool with three parameters, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. Output schema exists (not shown) but is not needed for completeness here. No significant gaps for the intended use.

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 has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by specifying that 'node' is the node name, 'vmid' is the VM ID, and 'feature' accepts specific values like 'snapshot', 'clone', 'copy'. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 the verb 'check' and the resource 'feature available/supported for a VM', with concrete examples (snapshot, clone, copy). It effectively distinguishes from other get_* tools by specifying the VM feature context.

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 implies usage for checking feature availability, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. The context makes it reasonably clear, but lacks explicit guidance for sibling differentiation.

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