vm_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important behavioral trait that an empty name returns all registered VMs, but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown name, required permissions, or whether the VM must be running.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler that encodes both the primary action and the parameter-driven mode switch.

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 no explanation, and for a one-parameter read tool the mode switch is covered. Missing only edge-case behavior (unknown name, permissions), which is minor at this complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does explain the key semantic that an empty/default name means 'all VMs' rather than a lookup failure. It stops short of clarifying whether 'name' is a registered name, ID, or label.

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 ('Report') and resource ('VM's status'), plus the exact scope switch (one VM vs every registered VM). No sibling in the list offers VM status reporting, so an agent can route here without opening the schema.

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 sentence implicitly defines two invocation modes (named VM vs all VMs), which is useful context, but it names no alternatives, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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