get_vm_state

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about this being a non-destructive read, whether it errors on an unknown VM, or whether state is cached/fetched live. For a simple read tool this is a modest gap, but it is entirely unaddressed.

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 short clause with zero filler and the key concept front-loaded. It is efficient, though it reads as a fragment rather than a complete sentence with an explicit verb.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what the return looks like, e.g. the set of possible power states (running, paused, saved, stopped). Without that, the agent knows the purpose but not the shape of the answer, which is the main thing missing for a one-parameter query tool.

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 already documents that it accepts a VM name or UUID, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the parameter work.

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 resource (a VM's power state) with an implicit read verb, which is enough to separate it from siblings like start_vm, get_vm_info, or list_vms. It does not explicitly contrast with wait_for_vm_state, which also reports state, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to call this versus wait_for_vm_state (which polls until a state is reached) or get_vm_info (which likely includes state among other data). The agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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