get_vm_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about error behavior for unknown VM names, required permissions, or whether this is a cheap or expensive call. Only the fact that it reads (rather than mutates) one VM is implied by the wording.

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 noun-phrase sentence with zero filler, and the scope qualifier 'one VM' is placed before any secondary detail. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should indicate what 'detailed configuration and state' actually includes, since the sibling get_vm_state may return a subset. For a tool whose entire value is the shape of its response, this is a significant omission.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'VM name or UUID' in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about identifier formats, ambiguity resolution, or whether name lookup is case-sensitive, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 phrase 'Detailed configuration and state of one VM' identifies the resource (a single VM) and the kind of data returned (configuration plus state), which separates it from list_vms by scope. It never names or contrasts with get_vm_state, which sounds nearly identical, so the distinction is left to inference.

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 statement of prerequisites (must the VM exist, must it be running?), and no mention of the obvious alternative get_vm_state. The agent must guess which of the two VM-inspection tools to call.

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