mcp-qemu-lab

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.