get_vm_usbs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens if the VM does not exist, whether an empty list is returned, or any error conditions. The description is purely declarative with no behavioral detail.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line. However, the Args section is redundant with the input schema and adds little value. It is efficiently short but includes a slightly unnecessary structural repetition.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable. It explains what the tool does and the parameter is self-evident. However, it lacks context about error cases, permissions, or how USB devices are represented, which leaves some gaps for an agent.

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 restates 'vm_id: The VM identifier' in an Args block, which only duplicates the schema's property title 'Vm Id' and adds no new information. It does not specify the expected format (e.g., UUID vs name), whether it is case-sensitive, or any constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 'Get USB passthrough devices attached to a virtual machine', which clearly specifies the verb (get), the resource (USB passthrough devices), and the target (a virtual machine). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_vm_adapters and get_vm_cdroms, each targeting a different device category.

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 context is implied by the tool name and the 1-line description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions (e.g., VM must exist, requires specific permissions). The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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