nanokvm_mounted_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple statement by disclosing that the tool returns a dictionary or None if nothing is mounted, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it) or describe any side effects, which would have made it more transparent.

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 concise, using only two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the second briefly describes the return value. The structure is front-loaded and every word 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?

For a simple getter tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool does and what it returns, including the None case. The output schema likely provides detailed return fields, so the description need not elaborate further.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema confirms this. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It correctly does not introduce any misleading parameter-related information.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('currently mounted ISO image'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like nanokvm_mount_iso, nanokvm_unmount_iso, and nanokvm_list_images. It precisely conveys that this tool is for querying the currently mounted ISO, not for mounting/unmounting or listing all images.

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 this tool (when you need information about the currently mounted ISO), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No guidance is given about using nanokvm_list_images for available images or nanokvm_mount_iso for changing the mount, so the guidance is only implicit.

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