vm_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context: the information categories returned (IP, SSH, resources) and the list-all behavior without vm_name. But it does not disclose return formatting, pagination, or error behavior, which the absence of an output schema would warrant.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero wasted words. The primary function and information scope appear first, and the optional-parameter behavior is added second. 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 simple read-only tool with strong annotations, the core behavior is well covered: what it shows, the listing fallback, and the safe/idempotent profile. The gaps are the fully unexplained json/detailed parameters and the lack of any return-format details given that no output schema exists. An agent can call it correctly for the basic case, but not confidently for the optional flags.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for vm_name only (its omission triggers a full listing). The 'json' and 'detailed' parameters receive no semantic explanation anywhere, leaving an agent to guess at their effect. With two of three parameters undocumented, the compensation is only partial.

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 states a specific verb (Affiche = displays), a resource (VM), and the exact scope of information (status, IP, SSH, resources). It also covers the no-vm_name fallback behavior (lists all VMs). This cleanly distinguishes it from the action-oriented siblings (vm_start, vm_stop, vm_destroy, vm_exec) and from backup_status, which is scoped to backups.

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 gives clear contextual guidance on parameter usage: 'Sans vm_name, liste toutes les VMs' tells the agent when omitting the argument changes the behavior. However, it never names alternatives or states when-not-to-use it versus siblings such as vm_verify, so tool-selection guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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