pve_get_vm_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is useful, but the description does not explicitly state that no VM/container state is changed or mention any auth/rate constraints. This is minimally adequate for a simple read tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states exactly what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is less critical. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter and usage guidance, the description is only minimally self-sufficient. It is complete enough for an obvious getter but leaves gaps around vm_type and when to choose this tool.

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%, but the description adds almost no parameter meaning. 'QEMU VM or LXC container' hints at the vm_type values, but node and vmid are left only as titles in the schema, and the qemu default for vm_type is not mentioned.

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 clear verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('current status for a QEMU VM or LXC container'). It is distinct from siblings like pve_get_vm_config, pve_list_vms, and the mutating tools, though it does not explicitly compare against them.

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 is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The agent must infer that this is for runtime status rather than configuration, task status, or resource listing.

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