vm_log

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 discloses that the tool reads a log and additionally surfaces the qemu command line, which hints at read-only behavior, but it says nothing about permissions, whether the log stream blocks or terminates, or how much output is returned.

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 compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the debugging motivation in a short parenthetical. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with two parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the definition leaves the agent guessing about the meaning of 'name' and the line-count semantics of 'tail', which is a real gap for an otherwise simple tool.

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 0% with two parameters ('name' and 'tail') both undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'Tail' but only as the verb, never explaining that the integer parameter controls how many lines to return, and never clarifies that 'name' identifies the VM. It does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Tail the VM's serial console log' plus a secondary output ('show the qemu command line'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like vm_status, vm_screenshot, and vm_boot. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 parenthetical '(debugging boot)' implies the intended scenario, giving implied usage context. However, it names no alternative (e.g. vm_status for non-log state) and states no exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance is only inferred.

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