qemu_vm_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying what state is inspected (process, QMP, guest TCP transport), which is useful context beyond annotations. There is no contradiction, but no deeper traits such as auth requirements or failure behavior are disclosed.

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 16-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and names the exact scopes of the read. Every word earns its place; there is no filler and no repetition of schema or annotation information.

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?

The tool is low-complexity: one required parameter, and the safety profile is fully covered by annotations. The description names the three state domains read, giving the agent a reasonable expectation of what the result will contain. The absence of an output schema means the return structure is unstated, but for a simple read-only status tool that is a minor gap.

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 compensate, but it only implies that vm_id identifies a managed QEMU VM. It does not explain how to obtain vm_id, what values are valid beyond the regex pattern, or the meaning of the pattern constraints. The parameter name is self-evident, yet the description adds almost nothing on top of it.

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 identifies the exact resource ('one managed QEMU VM') as well as the specific state domains inspected (process, QMP, guest TCP transport). This clearly conveys function and scope, implicitly distinguishing it from list-oriented siblings like qemu_vm_list. However, it never explicitly names a sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as vm_status, qemu_vm_metrics, qemu_doctor, or qemu_vm_list. The description states only what the tool does, with no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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