Get VM VNC proxy ticket

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds context: it generates a one-time ticket for noVNC clients. However, it does not disclose expiration, permissions required, or side effects of multiple calls.

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 sentences, no redundant information. The first sentence states the core action and result; the second adds a key detail about one-time usage. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 description explains the tool returns a ticket and port, but no output schema exists, so more detail on return structure would be beneficial. It covers the basic concept but leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 only 33% (only websocket has a description). The tool description does not describe any parameters, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions on node and vmid.

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 'generate' and the resource 'VNC ticket and port' to open a remote console. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'one-time ticket for noVNC clients', but does not explicitly differentiate from other proxy tools like vm_spiceproxy or vm_termproxy.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as container_vncproxy or vm_spiceproxy. The description lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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