query_debug_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully shoulders behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, but omits critical details such as whether the operation is read-only (likely), requires special permissions, or has any side effects on the guest system.

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 sentence of 7 words conveys the entire purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

While an output schema exists (not shown), the description is minimal. It does not clarify that the tool is non-destructive or that it retrieves settings from the guest VM. For a simple tool, this may be sufficient, but more context (such as 'read-only' or 'no side effects') would improve completeness.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Per guidelines, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4, which is appropriate since there is nothing to explain.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource 'bcdedit debug settings from the guest', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_cmd or run_ps which are general command executors.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While its purpose is implied (retrieve debug settings), there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with similar tools like run_cmd which could achieve the same goal.

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