KVM session status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it partly meets it by enumerating what the response reveals (connection state, resolution, blank display, mouse mode, other clients), which implies a non-mutating query. It does not state that it is read-only, side-effect free, or what 'other KVM clients' means in practice.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the most decision-relevant item (connection state). It is terse to the point of being clipped, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description must report what comes back, and it does enumerate the returned fields. Given zero parameters and a simple read operation, this is close to sufficient; only the meaning of the client-list field is left ambiguous.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing about arguments needs explaining. The field list in the description maps to return content rather than inputs, which is the right emphasis for a parameterless tool.

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 is a telegraphic noun list of reported fields rather than a verb+resource statement, but the title and content make clear it reports KVM session state. An agent can infer it is a status read, though it is not explicitly differentiated from siblings like system_info or sensors.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus system_info, sensors, or screenshot, nor any note about polling or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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