get_running_vms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get'), which is non-destructive, but it does not disclose return format, error handling, or permission requirements. For a simple listing operation, this is adequate though not detailed.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's function without any redundant words or fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate. It does not explicitly state the response format or behavior when the node is invalid or has no running VMs, but the core functionality is clear. It could benefit from a bit more context, but it is not critically incomplete.

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 fully documents the only parameter 'node' with 100% coverage, and the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles the parameter description adequately.

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 lists all running VMs and containers on a node. The verb 'Get' and the specific resource (running VMs/containers) make the purpose unambiguous, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_vm_status (for a specific VM) or get_node_status (node health overview).

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 the tool is used to retrieve running VMs and containers on a node, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over similar tools such as get_vm_status or get_container_status. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer the appropriate use case.

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