vm_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered externally. The description adds the useful scope note that it aggregates several facets including checkpoint count, but says nothing about cost, latency, or what happens when the VM is off/missing.

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 verb and resource, listing only the facets that matter. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool the description is close to sufficient; only the vm_name format is left unaddressed.

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 single required parameter vm_name is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not say whether a name, ID, or fully-qualified path is expected, leaving an inference the agent must make.

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 (get) and resource (VM) and enumerates the facets inspected: state, devices, memory, network, checkpoint count. That clearly separates it from vm_list (enumeration) and the checkpoint_*/guest_* families, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: this is the per-VM inspection call, taking a single vm_name. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over vm_list, vm_wait, or the guest_* tools, and no preconditions (VM must exist, host reachable) are mentioned.

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