slide_get_virtual_machine

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that VNC password is redacted (same as list tool), which is a specific behavioral detail. It also describes the data returned. However, it does not mention error conditions, authentication requirements, or any other side effects. For a simple read-only get, this is adequate but not exhaustive, earning a 3.

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 two concise sentences. The first front-loads the action and the key content (state, CPU/memory, network config, RDP endpoint). The second adds the redaction note efficiently. No filler or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-resource getter with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It lists the returned fields and the redaction behavior, which is all an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly. No missing critical information for this scope.

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 100%: virt_id is described as 'Virtual machine ID.' The description adds no further meaning beyond stating 'by ID' in the text, which is redundant with the name and schema. Since the schema already documents the parameter fully, the description adds no additional value, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Get' with a specific resource ('a single virtual machine by ID') and enumerates the returned data (state, CPU/memory, network config, RDP endpoint). This distinguishes it from the sibling slide_list_virtual_machines and other getters. It is unambiguous about scope and content.

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 implies when to use it: when you need a single VM by ID, contrasting with the list tool. It also references slide_list_virtual_machines for redaction context, linking to an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of list when you have an ID' or give exclusions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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