console_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what the read yields (video-head resolutions) and why, but says nothing about failure modes (guest off, unsupported VM) or the shape/ordering of the multiple heads, which matters for a tool whose whole purpose is coordinate math.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the use case appended. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the tool has only one obvious required parameter. However, for a tool whose output feeds coordinate planning, the description omits any hint about how heads map to coordinates or the prerequisite guest state, leaving it merely adequate.

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 0% and the description never mentions the single parameter vm_name, so it does not compensate for the gap. The name is largely self-explanatory, but nothing clarifies accepted formats (VM name vs ID) or what happens when the VM is not found.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read guest video-head resolutions") plus the downstream reason ("for mouse coordinate planning"), which distinguishes it from siblings like console_screenshot or console_mouse_move. It does not explicitly name the siblings it complements, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase "for mouse coordinate planning" implies the tool should be called before issuing mouse moves/clicks, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g. guest must be running, which hypervisor/console backend). Usage must be inferred.

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