detect_guest_os

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only restates what is returned. It does not disclose whether the VM must be running, whether Guest Additions must be installed for detection to succeed, what happens on failure, or whether the call is read-only and safe to repeat.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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?

For a one-parameter detection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what OS families may be reported, what Guest Additions status values mean, and whether the VM must be running. Without those, the agent lacks enough context to interpret results or predict failures.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, where 'vm' is documented as a name or UUID, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, which meets the baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb (Detect) and a specific resource (guest OS family and Guest Additions status), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_vm_info or get_vm_state. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_vm_info. The agent must infer that this tool is appropriate when guest-level OS or Guest Additions details are needed.

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