get_guest_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe/read-only profile is covered. The description adds what is being read (power state, current resource usage) but reveals no additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, freshness guarantees, or failure behavior. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the operation and the data returned with no wasted words. The short length is appropriate for a read-only status tool with an output schema and annotations.

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 simple status-read tool, the description plus the readOnly/idempotent annotations and existing output schema cover the essential context. The main gaps are the lack of explicit parameter semantics and sibling routing, but they do not make the tool unusable.

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 compensate by explaining node, vmid, or guest_type; it only refers generically to 'a guest'. The property names and constraints carry some meaning, but an agent gets no help on how the three required parameters relate to the operation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a guest'), and names the exact data returned: power state and current resource usage. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_guest_config (configuration) and list_guests (enumerating guests).

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 it—when a single guest's live state or resource usage is needed—but it gives no explicit exclusions or pointers to alternatives such as get_guest_config or list_guests. The context is clear but the guidance is implicit.

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