clone_guest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits like auto-detection of type/node, default full clone behavior, and optional linked clones, but does not cover permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or the output format (though an output schema exists).

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (cloning operation with 6 parameters) and no annotations, the description does well by explaining parameters and basic behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, errors, or side effects. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, keeping it reasonably complete.

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 provides detailed semantics for all 6 parameters beyond the schema, explaining each parameter's purpose, defaults (e.g., full_clone default true), and implications (e.g., linked vs. full clone), adding significant value.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Clone an existing VM or container') and resources ('VM or container'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_vm, create_container, or create_snapshot by focusing on cloning rather than creating from scratch or snapshotting.

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 usage for cloning VMs/containers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_vm or create_container. It mentions auto-detection of type and node, which provides some context, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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