qemu_vm_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds scope by specifying 'managed QEMU process and QMP metrics,' but it does not disclose behavior for unmanaged VM IDs, the exact metric set returned, or failure modes. This is comparable to other read-only tools where annotations do the heavy lifting.

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 eight-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Read.' Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 single parameter, read-only annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is near the minimum viable level. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'QMP metrics' actually includes, whether the VM must be pre-selected, and how this tool relates to qemu_vm_status. An agent can probably call it, but may be guessing about the return contents and exact preconditions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate for the single vm_id parameter, but it does not explain what values are valid, how the VM is identified, or whether it must be a currently selected/managed VM. The parameter name and schema pattern provide limited self-evident meaning, so this is slightly above a complete absence of semantic 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 a specific verb ('Read') and names its resource: managed QEMU process and QMP metrics. It is clear enough to understand the general purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like qemu_vm_status or qemu_doctor.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus qemu_vm_status, qemu_doctor, process_list, or system_info. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites mentioned.

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