vm_console

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 disclosing behavior. 'Access VM console' provides no details about what happens when the tool is invoked: whether it opens an interactive session, what kind of output to expect, whether it requires a running VM, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely concise—a single short sentence that conveys the core action. It is front-loaded and without wasted words. However, it is arguably under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no output schema; the brevity borders on being too thin.

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 tool has three parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'access' entails, the expected return value, or the difference between console types. An agent would lack essential context for using this tool correctly.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (node, vmid, type) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to compensate. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline 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 'Access VM console' clearly identifies the tool's purpose: providing console access to a VM. It uses a specific verb and resource, and although there is a sibling tool 'ssh_to_vm', 'console' is distinct enough to avoid confusion. However, the description could be more specific about the console type (serial vs websocket) which is covered in the schema.

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 alternatives like ssh_to_vm or other VM interaction tools. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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