proxmox_vm_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get status') but discloses nothing about potential failure modes, required permissions, or side effects. There is no mention of what 'status' entails or whether the operation is safe. This is minimal transparency for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no extraneous information, and every word contributes to clarity. It is appropriately concise for a simple status-checking tool.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally explain what the status response contains or any important context. It only states 'Get status' without elaborating on the return format, possible statuses, or edge cases. For a simple tool this is a notable gap, especially given the absence of structural metadata.

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 each parameter already has a clear description (node, vmid, device_id). The tool description adds no semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Per evaluation rules, the baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and no additional param guidance is offered in the description.

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 'Get status of a specific VM on Proxmox' clearly specifies the action (get status), the resource (a specific VM), and the platform (Proxmox). It is distinct from sibling tools like proxmox_list_vms (which lists VMs) and proxmox_container_status (which targets containers), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for individual VMs only, nor does it direct users to sibling tools for containers or node status. The usage context is only implied by the name and minimal description, but no explicit exclusions or recommendations are given.

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