get_vm_status

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 only implies a read operation via 'Fetch' but does not state whether it is read-only, what data is returned, error behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what 'detailed runtime status' includes, what the return value looks like, or any prerequisites such as node/vmid validity. The tool is simple, but the description leaves too many gaps for complete understanding.

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 input schema has no descriptions, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of 'node' and 'vmid'. At 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it adds no parameter context, relying on the agent's prior knowledge of QEMU/Proxmox terminology.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('detailed runtime status of a QEMU virtual machine'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vm_config (configuration) and list_vms (listing). However, it does not explicitly explain what 'runtime status' includes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_vm_config or get_container_status. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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