mcp-qemu-lab

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.