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 starting a VM and returning endpoints, but lacks critical details such as required permissions, potential side effects (e.g., resource consumption), error conditions, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and outcome. There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (starting a VM is a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete—it lacks behavioral and parametric details. However, the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, keeping it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 for undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'vm_id' refers to, the purpose of timeouts, or default behaviors. With 3 parameters (1 required) and no param info in the description, it fails to bridge the coverage gap.

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 ('Start a VM') and the outcome ('return QMP/SSH endpoints'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'vm_create' (creates a VM) or 'vm_stop' (stops a VM), though the verb 'Start' implies a distinct operation on an existing VM.

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., VM must exist, be stopped), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'vm_create' for initial setup or 'vm_status' for checking state, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.