start_vm

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

With no annotations, the description covers that booting happens in the background, returns SSH details, and first boot is slow. It lacks disclosure on potential conflicts, resource limits, or state changes beyond creation. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, performance caveat, and parameter clarification. No redundant or vague statements; information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. Key details about optional parameters and expected return values beyond SSH info are missing, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 only explains two parameters (os and release) with formatting hints, leaving eight parameters (arch, cpus, ports, etc.) completely unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 boots a guest VM in the background, specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_supported_os or exec_in_vm by focusing on VM startup and return of SSH details.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on first boot performance and the correct format for os and release parameters, including how to get the default release. However, it does not discuss when alternatives might be preferred or when not to use this tool.

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