execute_vm_command

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

The annotations already provide destructiveHint: true, which warns of potential harm. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond that. It does not explain that executing commands can modify the VM state, require specific permissions, or that the agent must be installed and running. With annotations covering safety, the description falls short by not elaborating on prerequisites or side effects.

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 a single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. It is concise and front-loaded. While it could benefit from a slightly longer explanation, it is not verbose and earns its place.

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 complexity of executing commands in a VM (need for guest agent, potential for destructive actions, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (stdout, stderr, exit code), the requirement for the guest agent, or limitations. The description is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and prerequisites.

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 each parameter has a description in the input schema (e.g., 'The command to execute' for the command parameter). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. According to the calibration, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and there is no extra value from the description.

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 'Execute command via QEMU guest agent' clearly states the action (execute) and the target (command via QEMU guest agent). It distinguishes this tool from sibling VM management tools like clone_vm or start_vm, as it focuses on executing commands inside the VM. However, it could be more specific about the type of commands (e.g., shell commands).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool requires the QEMU guest agent to be running in the VM, nor does it suggest alternatives for VM management tasks. The description is silent on usage context.

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