qemu_hmp_command

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

The description discloses a significant behavioral trait beyond annotations: the VM remains locked by this session and must be unlocked. This is critical context. However, it doesn't discuss potential side effects of the arbitrary command, though annotations indicate non-destructive tool-level behavior.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the operation, the second provides essential locking instructions. Every word 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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete for an arbitrary-command tool. It fails to mention the return format or that the command can have arbitrary effects. The lock note is valuable but not enough for full contextual 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?

There is zero schema description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter-level detail. The names 'vm_id' and 'command' are self-explanatory, but no syntax, examples, or format guidance for the HMP command is provided.

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 clearly states the tool runs an HMP command via QMP's human-monitor-command, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling qemu_qmp_execute by specifying HMP rather than QMP.

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 lock note ('call vm_unlock when finished') gives a clear usage directive, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. The purpose implies HMP use, but it doesn't compare to qemu_qmp_execute or other VM tools.

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