pve_get_vm_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add the word 'Live' and lists the exact fields returned, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the VM must be running, how missing VMs are handled, or the exact return structure (object vs array), so transparency is partial.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the main concept ('Live VM metrics') and enumerates fields with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's 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?

For a one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description lists the expected fields but omits the return shape, error behavior, and relationship to sibling tools. It is adequate for a simple status read, but clear gaps remain.

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% and the description never mentions the vm_name parameter. The parameter name and title are self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning (e.g., whether it expects a VMID or hostname), so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Live VM metrics: CPU%, RAM used/max, PID, uptime, QMP status, lock, tags' clearly defines the tool as a status/read-only getter for a VM. The specific field list sets it apart from sibling tools like pve_get_vm_config, pve_get_vm_disks, and pve_get_vm_rrddata.

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 does not provide any when-to-use guidance, such as 'use this for current status; use pve_get_vm_rrddata for historical metrics'. It also does not mention any alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling names.

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