sylve_vm_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing what the response contains — configuration, live runtime state, and guest-agent-derived IPs — which matters since there is no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence that enumerates the payload contents and contains no filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 simple three-parameter read tool with rich annotations and fully described schema, one sentence plus the return-content hint is nearly sufficient. It stops short of explaining node omission semantics or guest-agent dependency, but no critical gap blocks correct invocation.

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 100%, so vm, node, and context are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning such as what happens when node is omitted or how RID vs name resolution behaves; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Show) and resource (VM) plus the exact payload scope: full configuration, live state, and guest-agent IPs. That distinguishes it implicitly from sylve_vm_list, 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 by the phrasing 'a VM's' (fetch details for one VM). It gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no pointer to sylve_vm_list for enumeration, and no prerequisites for the guest-agent IP behavior.

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