ssh_to_vm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'SSH into a VM using qm console' without explaining that it may start an interactive shell, how the command parameter is used, or whether it returns output. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's 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, front-loaded sentence that states the core function efficiently. It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices behavioral detail that other dimensions capture.

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 existence of similar sibling tools (vm_console, run_vm_command), the description lacks context to choose correctly. It also doesn't clarify the optional 'command' parameter or the interactive nature of the session, making it incomplete for an agent with no prior knowledge.

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 provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not compensate with extra clarity.

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 action (SSH) and target (VM), and specifies the method (qm console), making it more specific than a generic 'connect to VM'. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like run_vm_command or vm_console, which could be alternative ways to access a VM.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, excluded cases, or suggest any sibling tools for different scenarios, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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