vm_agent_exec_status

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, safety, or side effects. It only describes the purpose and parameters, leaving the agent unaware of potential mutability or read-only nature.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter list is clear but the 'Args:' formatting is slightly redundant given the schema.

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?

Parameters are fully covered, and an output schema exists (though not shown), so return info is not needed. However, missing context on errors, prerequisites, or the relationship to other guest agent commands reduces completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description defines all three parameters with one-line explanations. While sufficient to understand required inputs, it lacks details on formats, constraints, or relationships (e.g., that pid comes from exec).

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 'Get' and the resource 'status/result of a command previously executed via the guest agent'. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'vm_agent_exec' (which executes) and other guest agent tools.

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 after a 'vm_agent_exec' call by requiring the PID, but does not explicitly state when or when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives.

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