get_vm_graphics

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 the read-only nature via 'Get' and specifically lists what is returned: 'VNC port, type, and whether password protection is enabled.' It does not discuss side effects, permissions, or failure modes, but for a simple getter these omissions are less critical. The return-value disclosure goes beyond a bare statement of purpose.

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 concise and front-loaded: a purpose sentence, a return-value sentence, and a brief Args section. Every sentence adds distinct information, and the structure is easy to scan. No fluff or redundancy.

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 low complexity (one parameter, simple output), the description is nearly complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and identifies the input. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's burden. The only gap is the lack of usage guidance, which prevents a perfect score.

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 only parameter, vm_id, has no schema description (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate. It offers only 'The VM identifier,' which essentially restates the parameter name without adding format, type constraints, or usage nuances. This is minimal extra meaning, insufficient to fully clarify how to construct a valid 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get graphics/VNC console info for a virtual machine.' It clearly identifies the tool's unique scope among sibling get_* tools (e.g., get_vm_states, get_vm_ips) and enumerates the returned fields (VNC port, type, password protection). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 the tool is for retrieving VNC/graphics details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_vm or get_vm_states, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not prescriptive, so it meets the 'implied usage' level rather than the 'explicit when/when-not' level.

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