Get VM SPICE proxy ticket

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but description adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects like ticket expiration, invalidation of previous tickets, or requirement for VM to be running.

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 very concise (9 words) and front-loaded with key information. However, it sacrifices content that could improve understanding.

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?

Given no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details about return value, prerequisites (existing VM), and how to use the ticket. Sibling differentiation is missing.

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%, so description should clarify parameter meanings. It does not mention 'node' or 'vmid' at all. While names are somewhat self-explanatory, agents may benefit from guidance on how to obtain these values.

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 action ('Generate a SPICE ticket') and the resource ('for high-fidelity VM console access'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying VM (not container) and SPICE (not VNC or terminal).

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 when to use ('high-fidelity VM console access') but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like vm_vncproxy or container_spiceproxy, nor provide guidance on prerequisites or context.

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