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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that artifacts include 'hashes and provenance', which adds some context about return data, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, or how results are paginated/formatted. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List artifacts') and adds clarifying details ('with hashes and provenance') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for its purpose and easy to parse.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values, which helps completeness. However, with no annotations, low schema coverage for parameters, and multiple sibling listing tools, the description lacks sufficient context for optimal agent use. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in usage and behavioral guidance.

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?

The input schema has one parameter ('vm_id') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention parameters at all. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but doesn't, leaving the parameter undocumented. However, with only one optional parameter, the baseline impact is moderate, warranting a score of 3 for minimal adequacy.

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 ('List') and resource ('artifacts') with additional attributes ('with hashes and provenance'), which provides a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'process_list' or 'guest_copy_out', which also list resources, leaving room for ambiguity about when to choose this tool over others.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'process_list' and 'guest_copy_out' that also list resources, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers limited details. It implies a mutation (creating a session handle) but doesn't cover permissions, side effects (e.g., pausing the target process), error handling, or session lifecycle. The mention of 'handle' hints at a resource to be managed, but lacks depth on what that entails operationally.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the complexity (debugging operation with 4 parameters) and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it lacks usage context, parameter details, and behavioral traits. However, the presence of an output schema mitigates some need to explain return values. This results in a minimally adequate but gap-filled description for the tool's context.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It mentions 'target PID' which aligns with the 'pid' parameter, but doesn't explain 'vm_id', 'ready_timeout_sec', or 'pid_check_timeout_sec'. This leaves three parameters undocumented, failing to bridge the coverage gap effectively.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('in-guest debugger session handle for a target PID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like debugger_continue or debugger_detach by focusing on session creation rather than control or termination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., process_list or guest_exec), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a running VM or process), exclusions (e.g., not for non-PID targets), or related tools (e.g., using debugger_continue after attachment). This leaves the agent with minimal context for appropriate tool selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Continue execution') but doesn't explain what happens during continuation (e.g., whether it resumes until a breakpoint, timeout, or error), what the output contains, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a debugger operation.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of debugger operations and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states the basic purpose but misses details on behavior, parameters, and usage context. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description doesn't leverage it to explain return values or outcomes.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema—no explanation of what 'session_id' refers to (e.g., an active debug session) or what 'timeout_sec' controls (e.g., maximum wait time). This fails to address 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Continue execution') and resource ('for debugger session'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling debugger tools like debugger_attach or debugger_set_breakpoint, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugger session), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like debugger_detach or debugger_read_registers.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('detach and mark inactive'), implying a state change, but lacks details on effects (e.g., whether it stops debugging, releases resources, or impacts other sessions), permissions needed, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (state-changing operation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral effects and usage context, making it incomplete for safe and effective use without additional inference or documentation.

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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides (a single required 'session_id' with 0% schema description coverage). Since there's only one parameter and the description doesn't elaborate on its format or meaning, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema minimally documents the parameter without additional semantic value from the description.

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 action ('detach and mark inactive') and resource ('debugger session'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like debugger_attach or debugger_continue, which would require more specific context about when detachment occurs versus continuation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugger session), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like debugger_continue or debugger_attach, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the method ('in-guest gdb attach') but lacks critical details: whether this is read-only or has side effects, authentication needs, error conditions, rate limits, or what the output contains. The description is minimal and doesn't adequately cover behavioral traits for a debugging tool.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and method, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without fluff.

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?

Given the complexity of debugging operations and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It states the purpose but misses usage context, parameter details, and behavioral traits. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in the description, preventing a lower score.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides no information about the two parameters ('session_id' and 'timeout_sec'), such as what a session_id represents, how to obtain it, or the meaning of the timeout. The description fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Read process registers') and method ('via in-guest gdb attach'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from obvious non-siblings like 'process_list' or 'guest_dump_memory', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from closer siblings like 'debugger_attach' or 'debugger_continue'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active debugger session), when-not scenarios, or comparisons to similar tools like 'guest_dump_memory' for memory reading versus register reading.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Set' operation (implying mutation) but doesn't describe what happens when a breakpoint is set, whether it's persistent across sessions, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. The mention of 'symbol or address' is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes helpful parenthetical clarification. Every element earns its place, making it efficient despite its brevity.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema will handle return values, but the description lacks crucial context about session requirements, breakpoint behavior, and parameter formats that would be needed for confident tool invocation.

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 for both parameters, the description doesn't explain what 'session_id' or 'location' mean, what format they should be in, or how they relate to the 'symbol or address' mentioned. The description mentions breakpoint types but doesn't connect this to the 'location' parameter, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 action ('Set breakpoint') and target ('for a debugger session'), with the parenthetical '(symbol or address)' providing useful specificity about what types of breakpoints can be set. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'debugger_continue' or 'debugger_detach' among the sibling 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an active debugger session. While the context implies it's for debugging sessions, there's no explicit when/when-not guidance or reference to sibling tools like 'debugger_attach' which might be required first.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions actions like 'auto-installs' and 'prepares workspace', which imply mutation and side effects, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool that likely modifies the environment, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads key actions ('checks and auto-installs') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by conveying multiple functions concisely, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (involving dependency management and workspace preparation), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core actions but lacks details on behavioral traits like side effects or prerequisites, leaving gaps that could hinder effective use by an agent.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately avoids redundant information, earning a high baseline score. It doesn't add extra semantics, but that's acceptable given the empty parameter set.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('checks', 'auto-installs', 'prepares', 'records') and resources ('host dependencies', 'workspace', 'versions'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'guest_wait_ready' or 'vm_start', which might also involve preparation steps, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing (e.g., before other operations), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone. This lack of explicit when/when-not instructions reduces its effectiveness in tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the transfer method ('via SCP') but omits critical details: whether this requires authentication, network connectivity, specific VM states, error handling, or what happens if files exist at the destination. For a file copy operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. Every part ('Copy a host file into the guest filesystem via SCP') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (file transfer between host and guest), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses parameter details, behavioral context, and usage guidelines. The output schema may help with return values, but the description alone doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameter documentation. It mentions 'host file' and 'guest filesystem' but doesn't explain what 'vm_id', 'host_path', 'guest_path', or 'timeout_sec' mean or their expected formats (e.g., absolute paths, VM identifier syntax). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 action ('Copy') and resources involved ('a host file into the guest filesystem via SCP'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'guest_copy_out' (which presumably copies from guest to host), missing full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'guest_copy_out' or other file transfer methods. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running), exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools, offering minimal usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning 'artifact metadata' but lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is destructive (e.g., modifies the guest file), rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with VM resources.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of VM operations and no annotations, the description is minimal. It benefits from having an output schema (so return values are covered elsewhere), but it fails to address critical aspects like behavioral traits, parameter meanings, or usage context, making it incomplete for safe and effective tool invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only vaguely references 'guest' and 'artifact' without defining what 'vm_id', 'guest_path', 'host_subdir', or 'timeout_sec' mean or how they affect the operation. This leaves key input semantics undocumented.

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 action ('Copy a file artifact out of the guest') and the resource ('file artifact'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'guest_copy_in' by specifying directionality ('out of the guest'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other tools like 'guest_dump_memory' or 'process_dump_core' that might also extract data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'guest_dump_memory' for memory extraction or 'process_dump_core' for core dumps, leaving usage context unclear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('dump') and mechanism ('via QMP'), but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's destructive (e.g., pauses the VM), rate limits, or what the output artifact entails (e.g., file format, location). This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves significant system interaction.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. It earns its place by conveying the essential operation, though it could benefit from additional context without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given the complexity of memory dumping (likely a high-impact operation), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. However, the presence of an output schema mitigates some gaps by presumably documenting return values, but key behavioral and parametric details are missing, making it minimally viable but with clear deficiencies.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it adds no semantic information beyond what's inferred from the tool name. Parameters like 'vm_id', 'output_label', 'compress', and 'timeout_sec' are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving their purposes and effects unclear.

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 action ('dump full guest memory') and the target ('to a host artifact file via QMP'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'process_dump_core' or 'vm_snapshot_save', which might involve similar memory or state operations, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running), exclusions (e.g., not for live debugging), or compare to siblings like 'process_dump_core' for process-level dumps or 'vm_snapshot_save' for state preservation, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'unsafe override' which hints at security implications, but doesn't explain what makes commands unsafe, what authentication is required, rate limits, or what happens during execution failures. The SSH aspect is mentioned but not elaborated.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place - 'Execute' (action), 'allowlisted guest command' (resource), 'over SSH' (method), and 'optional unsafe override' (key capability). No wasted words or redundant phrasing.

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 complex execution tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the security model ('allowlisted'), SSH connection details, error handling, or what the unsafe override entails. The output schema existence helps, but the description leaves critical gaps for safe usage.

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 for 6 parameters, the description fails to compensate. It only vaguely references 'unsafe override' without explaining the relationship between unsafe_allow_arbitrary_commands and unsafe_command parameters. No parameter meanings, formats, or constraints are provided beyond what's in the bare schema.

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 action ('Execute') and resource ('allowlisted guest command over SSH'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on command execution rather than debugging, file operations, or VM management. However, it doesn't specify what 'guest' refers to (VM guest OS) or what 'allowlisted' means in practice.

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 mentions 'optional per-call unsafe override' which hints at an alternative mode, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like guest_copy_in/out for file operations or debugger tools for debugging. No explicit when/when-not instructions or sibling tool comparisons are included.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a 'wait' operation, implying it's a blocking call that polls until conditions are met, but doesn't specify what happens on success/failure (e.g., returns status, throws error), rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the high-level goal but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, and differentiation from siblings. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but other gaps remain, making it minimally adequate with clear room for improvement.

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?

The description adds some semantic context beyond the schema: it mentions 'SSH/cloud-init readiness' and 'debugger dependencies (gdb)', which loosely maps to parameters like 'wait_for_cloud_init' and 'require_gdb'. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, it doesn't fully explain the purpose of 'vm_id', 'timeout_sec', or 'poll_interval_sec'. The baseline is 3 due to partial compensation for the low 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Wait for guest SSH/cloud-init readiness and optional debugger dependencies (gdb).' It specifies the verb 'wait for' and the resources/targets (SSH/cloud-init readiness, debugger dependencies). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'vm_status' or 'ensure_dependencies', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions waiting for 'optional debugger dependencies (gdb)', implying use when debugging is needed, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vm_status' for general VM status checks or 'ensure_dependencies' for dependency management. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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

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 the action (generate and copy) but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention that this is a destructive operation (core dump halts/kills the process), requires specific permissions or dependencies, has timeouts (implied by parameters but not described), or what the output artifact entails. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Generate a process core dump') and includes essential details (method and outcome). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (process debugging with multiple parameters), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context (e.g., destructive nature), and usage guidelines. The output schema might cover return values, but the description doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain any parameters: 'vm_id', 'pid', 'reason_label', 'gdb_timeout_sec', or 'copy_timeout_sec' are undocumented. The description mentions 'gdb/gcore' and 'copy' but doesn't tie these to specific parameters or their semantics. With 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.

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 action ('Generate a process core dump') and the target ('in guest'), and specifies the method ('via gdb/gcore') and outcome ('copy artifact out'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'guest_dump_memory' by focusing on process-specific debugging. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'guest_dump_memory' or 'debugger_attach'. It mentions the method but not the context (e.g., for debugging crashes vs. memory analysis). Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, it offers minimal usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing processes but fails to describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential side effects, or how it handles errors. The mention of 'guest' implies virtualization context, but this is insufficient for a tool with 3 parameters.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text 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?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. However, the existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. The description covers the basic purpose but misses parameter explanations and behavioral context needed for a tool in this complexity class.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds no information about the 3 parameters (vm_id, filter, timeout_sec). The description doesn't explain what 'vm_id' refers to, how 'filter' works, or what 'timeout_sec' controls, leaving parameters completely undocumented.

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 ('List') and resource ('guest processes') with specific attributes (pid, user, cmdline). It distinguishes from siblings like 'process_dump_core' or 'process_maps' by focusing on listing rather than dumping or mapping, though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'guest_exec' or 'process_maps'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'parsed' output, which hints at structured data, but fails to describe critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, error conditions, or performance implications (e.g., timeouts). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (involving VM and process operations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low parameter coverage, it lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context, making it incomplete for safe and effective use without additional inference.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only implicitly references 'pid' in the resource path and does not explain 'vm_id' or 'timeout_sec'. While it adds some context by specifying the target ('guest process'), it does not fully clarify parameter meanings beyond what the schema names suggest, resulting in a baseline score.

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 action ('Return parsed') and resource ('/proc/<pid>/maps for a guest process'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'guest_dump_memory' or 'process_dump_core', which might involve similar memory-related operations, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'guest_dump_memory' or 'process_dump_core', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a running VM or specific process state. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions creation of multiple components (definition, disks, seed image) but doesn't address critical behaviors like whether this is a long-running operation, what permissions are required, whether resources are allocated immediately, or what happens on failure. For a complex provisioning tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies what gets created. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of purpose.

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 complex VM creation tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and multiple sibling VM management tools, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description doesn't address the tool's behavioral context, parameter meanings, or differentiation from related operations. It provides only the bare minimum of what the tool does.

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 for 8 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'name' represents, what 'arch' constrains, what 'net_mode' options mean, or how defaults affect the VM creation. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Create') and the resources involved ('VM definition, disks, and cloud-init seed image'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'vm_start' or 'vm_snapshot_save', which would require mentioning this is for initial VM provisioning rather than managing existing VMs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to create a VM before starting it with 'vm_start'), exclusions, or contextual triggers. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching 'recent' logs and 'tails', implying a read-only operation focused on recent data, but doesn't specify details like rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to grasp quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavioral traits, and parameter meanings. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but overall completeness is limited to the core function.

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?

The description implies parameters like 'vm_id' and types of logs (QEMU, serial, debug, audit), but with 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, it doesn't fully compensate. It adds some context about what 'include_serial' and 'include_debug' might control, but lacks details on defaults or semantics for 'lines' and 'include_audit_lines'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides structure without descriptions.

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 action ('fetch') and resource ('recent QEMU/serial/debug log tails and related audit lines for a VM'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'vm_status' or 'debugger_attach', which might also provide VM information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for debugging, monitoring, or other contexts, or how it differs from tools like 'vm_status' or 'debugger_attach' in the sibling list. The description lacks explicit usage instructions or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the technical mechanism ('via QMP HMP bridge') but lacks critical details: whether this is a destructive operation (overwrites current VM state), requires specific VM states (e.g., stopped), has side effects, or handles errors. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Load a VM snapshot') and includes only essential implementation detail. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral context, parameter semantics, and usage guidelines. The output schema helps, but the description should do more for a tool that alters VM state.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'vm_id' or 'snapshot_name' represent, their formats, or the purpose of 'timeout_sec'. This leaves all three parameters undocumented, failing to address 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Load') and resource ('VM snapshot by name') with implementation detail ('via QMP HMP bridge'). It distinguishes from sibling 'vm_snapshot_save' by specifying a load operation rather than save. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other VM tools like 'vm_start' or 'vm_stop' for full differentiation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for loading snapshots but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., VM must be stopped), exclusions, or comparisons to other VM state management tools like 'vm_start' or 'vm_status'.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Save a VM snapshot') but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a destructive operation (e.g., overwrites existing snapshots), permission requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The mention of 'via QMP HMP bridge' hints at technical context but doesn't clarify behavioral traits like response format or side effects.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Save a VM snapshot') and includes essential technical context ('via QMP HMP bridge'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutating operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage, parameters, and behavioral traits. The presence of an output schema prevents a lower score, but overall completeness is limited.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'by name' which loosely relates to 'snapshot_name', but adds no meaning for 'vm_id' or 'timeout_sec'. The description fails to explain what these parameters represent (e.g., VM identifier format, timeout purpose), leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 action ('Save a VM snapshot') and the mechanism ('via QMP HMP bridge'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'vm_snapshot_load' by specifying the save operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other VM tools like 'vm_create' or 'vm_stop' in terms of resource scope, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'vm_snapshot_load' for restore operations. This lack of contextual usage information leaves the agent with minimal direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions starting a VM and returning endpoints, but lacks critical details such as required permissions, potential side effects (e.g., resource consumption), error conditions, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and outcome. There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (starting a VM is a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete—it lacks behavioral and parametric details. However, the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, keeping it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'vm_id' refers to, the purpose of timeouts, or default behaviors. With 3 parameters (1 required) and no param info in the description, it fails to bridge 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Start a VM') and the outcome ('return QMP/SSH endpoints'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'vm_create' (creates a VM) or 'vm_stop' (stops a VM), though the verb 'Start' implies a distinct operation on an existing VM.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must exist, be stopped), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'vm_create' for initial setup or 'vm_status' for checking state, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what information is retrieved (status and log paths) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool that likely interacts with VM systems, where such context is critical.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is retrieved.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage, and parameters. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but overall completeness is limited.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies the 'vm_id' parameter is used to identify the VM but does not explain its format or the 'qmp_command_timeout_sec' parameter. Since it adds some meaning (e.g., linking 'vm_id' to VM status), it meets the baseline but does not fully cover the parameters.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('VM runtime/QMP/SSH status and log file paths'), making it immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'vm_logs_tail' or 'vm_start', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to siblings such as 'vm_logs_tail' for logs or 'vm_start' for VM control, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'gracefully or forcefully' which hints at different shutdown behaviors, but doesn't explain what these modes entail (e.g., data safety, timeouts, error handling), whether this is a destructive operation, or any authentication/rate limit considerations. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Stop a VM') and adds qualifying details ('gracefully or forcefully') concisely. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity of a VM stop operation (mutation with multiple parameters and behavioral nuances), no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on usage context, parameter meanings, and behavioral traits, making it incomplete for safe and effective tool invocation.

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?

The description implies parameters through 'gracefully or forcefully' (mapping to the 'mode' enum), but with 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters, it doesn't add meaningful details about 'vm_id', timeouts, or QMP command behavior. It provides minimal context beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for low coverage but not compensating adequately.

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 action ('Stop') and resource ('a VM'), with the addition of 'gracefully or forcefully' providing some specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'vm_status' or 'vm_start' beyond the obvious action difference, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running), when to choose graceful vs. force mode, or how it relates to siblings like 'vm_start' or 'vm_snapshot_save'. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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