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 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.