pve_get_vm_status

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 states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific status/configuration fields are returned. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 5 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'status and configuration' includes, whether this returns real-time or cached data, or what format the response takes. Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('node' and 'vmid') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and target ('VM status and configuration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_vm_config' or 'pve_get_container_status', which could cause confusion about scope boundaries.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pve_get_vm_config' (which might return only configuration) or 'pve_list_vms' (which might list VMs without detailed status). The description offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or relationship to other tools.

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