VM Status

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It implies a read-only retrieval but doesn't say whether a powered-off VM yields a status without an IP, whether the VM must exist, or whether any state change occurs.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the key outputs are stated up front. It earns its place and is easy to parse.

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 simple one-parameter read tool this is mostly adequate, but with no output schema it stops short of describing return format or edge cases (e.g., null IP, offline states). A short note about the distinction from vm_get_ip would make it complete.

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 schema already documents the single parameter completely ('VM name from config, or full .vmx path. Uses default_vm if omitted'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the generic 'virtual machine' phrase, so baseline 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 description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource and result ('running status and IP address of a virtual machine'). It clearly states the tool's purpose but doesn't distinguish it from the sibling vm_get_ip, which covers the IP part of the result.

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 given about when to call this tool versus vm_get_ip, vm_list, or vm_check_tools. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria. This is a clear gap given related siblings.

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