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 what information is retrieved (status and log paths) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool that likely interacts with VM systems, where such context is critical.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is retrieved.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage, and parameters. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but overall completeness is limited.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies the 'vm_id' parameter is used to identify the VM but does not explain its format or the 'qmp_command_timeout_sec' parameter. Since it adds some meaning (e.g., linking 'vm_id' to VM status), it meets the baseline but does not fully cover the parameters.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('VM runtime/QMP/SSH status and log file paths'), making it immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'vm_logs_tail' or 'vm_start', which prevents a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to siblings such as 'vm_logs_tail' for logs or 'vm_start' for VM control, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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