vm_connect

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it omits what the connection does (auth via password_env, idle timeout behavior, whether it binds owner_thread_id, whether it blocks). The one real disclosure is the scope limit "does not start or reconfigure."

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scope exclusion placed immediately after the action. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than padded, so the structure is sound but the content is thin.

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 five-parameter connection tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is far too little: connection lifetime, authentication, timeout semantics, and return behavior are all unaddressed. An agent could not confidently choose parameter values from this definition.

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?

With 5 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves nearly everything undefined: encoding, idle_seconds, password_env, and owner_thread_id are never mentioned. Only the "vm" parameter gains faint meaning from the phrase "configured running guest console."

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 verb+resource pairing ("Connect a configured running guest console") is specific, and the negative clause ("Does not start or reconfigure a VM") separates it from lifecycle siblings like vm_prepare_console. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when the guest is not yet configured.

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 "configured running guest console" implies the precondition that the VM must already exist and be running, and the exclusion of start/reconfigure implies a preparation step belongs elsewhere. It never explicitly says when to call this versus vm_exec, vm_input, or vm_disconnect.

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