vm_status

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description bears the full disclosure burden, and it does say which four data points come back — genuinely useful since nothing else documents the return. However, it says nothing about whether the call is safe/read-only, whether it errors when the VM is not booted, or how the values are formatted.

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?

A single compact sentence in which each clause maps to a distinct returned field, so nothing is wasted. The interrogative framing is slightly informal and defers the identification of the tool's action rather than front-loading it.

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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential question of what information is returned. It falls short only on failure behavior and return formatting, which are minor at this complexity level.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is an empty object and the description correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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 names the resource (QEMU/the VM) and enumerates the four facts it reports: running state, panic, touchscreen acceptance, and boot phase. It is clearly a status/diagnostic query and reads distinctly from siblings like vm_start, vm_stop, and vm_save, though it never uses an explicit verb ("report"/"return") and instead poses questions.

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 explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as wait_for, vm_start, or wait, nor any preconditions (must the VM be started?). The boot-phase clause faintly implies use during startup verification, but an agent must infer that entirely.

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