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. 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.