run_vm_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the guest agent prerequisite but does not explain that the command executes remotely via the guest agent, whether output is returned, what happens on timeout, or what privileges are used. This is insufficient for a command execution tool.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and free of redundant or filler content. It includes the key requirement (guest agent) without wasting words.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should convey what the tool returns (e.g., command output and exit code) and any behavioral caveats (e.g., timeout handling, non-interactive commands). It fails to do so, making the tool's behavior opaque beyond the input parameters.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (node, vmid, command, timeout). The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 a command in a virtual machine, using a specific verb ('run') and resource ('command in a VM'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like start_vm/stop_vm (which manage VM state) and ssh_to_vm (which likely opens an interactive shell). The prerequisite 'requires guest agent' adds relevant context.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ssh_to_vm, nor when not to use it. The only hint is the guest agent requirement, which is a dependency rather than a usage directive. No alternatives are named or compared.

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