vm_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Inspect" weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether it has side effects, what permissions or session state are required, what the result contains, or how failures are reported.

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 with no obvious waste. Its brevity is appropriate, though the opaque terminology keeps it from being fully clear.

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 tool requiring two identifiers, with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain the returned status fields, read-only behavior, or how the required parameters identify the target session.

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 description does not mention either required parameter. The names "session" and "owner_thread_id" are somewhat suggestive, but the description adds no meaning about their format, source, or relationship to the chat.

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 gives a verb ("Inspect") and a resource list ("this chat's guest session, native geometry and transport counters"), so the general purpose is identifiable. However, terms like "native geometry" and "transport counters" are opaque jargon, and the description does not clarify how this status inspection differs from siblings such as vm_observe or vm_review.

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 guidance on when to use vm_status versus the many vm_* siblings, nor any when-not-to-use condition. The only usage signal is the implied idea that this is for inspecting status.

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