mcp-qemu-lab

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.