guest_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only repeats parameter requirements already in the schema. No disclosure of side effects, error behavior, or performance impacts. As a read operation, it's safe, but lacks depth about return format or edge cases.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and provide necessary usage guidance. No redundant information, every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has no output schema and the description is brief. It does not explain what the returned status contains (e.g., CPU, memory, state). Given the complexity of a VM status, more detail is needed for an agent to interpret results effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by giving an example for node ('pve1') and clarifying type enumeration values. However, it does not explain the vmid's origin or provide any context about the status output, leaving significant semantic gaps.

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 tool provides 'detailed current status of one VM or container', specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_guests (which lists all) and mutation tools (start, stop, etc.), but could be more precise about what 'detailed status' includes.

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?

Explicitly advises to use list_guests first to find required parameters (node, vmid, type), providing practical usage context. No explicit 'when not to use' but the clear prerequisite suffices for most agents.

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