get_guest_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Auto-detects type and node,' which adds some context beyond basic functionality, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling, permissions required, rate limits, or what 'detailed status' entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides essential parameter details with an example. There's no wasted text, and the structure is efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it lacks usage guidelines and full behavioral transparency. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics adequately but falls short in providing a holistic understanding for effective tool selection.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage (only 'vmid' as an integer). The description explains that 'vmid' is 'The numeric ID of the VM or container (e.g. 100, 200),' clarifying its purpose and providing an example. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it could be more detailed (e.g., valid ranges).

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: 'Get detailed status of a VM or container by VMID. Auto-detects type and node.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('detailed status of a VM or container'), and key mechanism ('by VMID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_guest_metrics' or 'get_node_status', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_guest_metrics' (for metrics vs. status), 'list_vms' (for listing vs. detailed status), or 'get_node_status' (for node vs. guest status). There's no context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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