vm_verify

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the verification target but does not disclose what checks are performed, what output is produced, or how flags like quick or save_report affect behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema it is arguably too sparse to be fully 'appropriately sized.'

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?

The tool has no output schema and 9 parameters, but the description only communicates the high-level purpose. Missing details include what success/failure looks like, what 'faithful copy' means operationally, how the comparison flags alter behavior, and whether a report is generated.

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 mentions none of the 9 parameters. The meaningful flags (compare_content, compare_packages, self_check, save_report, quick, verbose) receive no explanation, so the agent must guess their semantics from names alone.

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 ('Vérifie') and resource (a cloned VM vs. the host system), making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like backup_verify, but the object of verification is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool is for verifying that a cloned VM faithfully matches its host, presumably after cloning. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternative (e.g., backup_verify) to choose instead.

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