qemu_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the VM will remain locked after execution and vm_unlock must be called. This is a significant side-effect not captured by the annotations and is critical for the agent to avoid deadlocks.

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 two sentences, starting with the core check scope and ending with a critical behavioral warning. Every sentence carries necessary information with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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, the description could mention return format or error conditions, but the tool is a diagnostic check with a clear purpose. It covers the main function, the lock side-effect, and the need to unlock. Given the simplicity of the tool and annotations, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It references 'configured binary' and 'accelerator policy', which map to qemu_binary and acceleration, but it does not explain the `profile` parameter at all. The enums provide values, but the description does not clarify how parameters influence the check, leaving partial but non-complete guidance.

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 the specific verb 'Check' and enumerates precise resources: local QEMU host, configured binary, managed VM root, accelerator policy, and guest-to-host TCP route. This clearly differentiates it from sibling status/list tools like qemu_vm_status and system_info, which focus on VM or system state rather than host-level QEMU diagnostics.

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?

The description implies diagnostic use by enumerating what is checked, and provides explicit after-use context: 'VM remains locked by this session; call vm_unlock when finished.' This gives clear context on when the lock side-effect applies, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions to avoid using it.

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