harvester_vm_get

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

The description says 'Get' implying a read-only operation, but annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: true, which is a direct contradiction. No behavioral details about side effects are provided, making this a serious transparency failure.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and is concise with no wasted words.

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 with no output schema and a destructiveHint contradiction, the description is incomplete. It mentions 'full spec and status (metrics, disks, networks)' but does not explain return values or address the side effects implied by annotations. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, as it only mentions 'output format' which is already documented.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'single virtual machine', and specifies the scope 'full spec and status (metrics, disks, networks)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'harvester_vm_list' that likely list VMs without full details.

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 implies the tool should be used when full VM details are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., listing) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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