vm_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the data domains covered and does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether a VM must be running, or what failure modes exist. A 'state' query is plausibly safe, but the agent must infer that from the name rather than from stated 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 a single concise phrase that front-loads the three state categories and contains no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter state inspection tool.

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, read-like tool with full schema coverage, the high-level scope is minimally viable. However, with no output schema or annotations, the agent still lacks information about the response format and any prerequisites such as VM power state or guest agent availability. The sibling tool names provide context but do not make the description self-sufficient.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter vm as 'VM name as registered in vms.yaml,' giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. With the schema fully covering the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource ('one VM') and enumerates the three state aspects covered: 'Power, debugger and terminal state.' This distinguishes it from broader state tools like sys_state or kd_state. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'gets,' but the intent is still clear.

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 on when to use vm_state versus related siblings such as kd_state, term_list, sys_state, or vm_list. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or contexts mentioned. The only implied scoping is 'one VM,' which is insufficient for an agent to confidently route among the sibling tools.

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