Guest OS info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses conditional behavior (only for QEMU VMs with guest agent) and return values (OS type, detected OS, IP addresses). However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or safety profile, which is acceptable for a read-only tool but could be more explicit.

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 sentences, front-loaded with a question, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: first explains what it returns, second gives a concrete example. Highly efficient.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the return values, conditions (guest agent), and examples. It lacks specification of output format but is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with clear description of 'guest' parameter as 'VMID or name of the VM/container'. Description adds an example ('VMID 101') but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns OS type and detected OS info for QEMU VMs with guest agent, answering the question 'what OS is VMID 101?'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like guest_config or guest_status by focusing specifically on OS information.

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?

Description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as guest_config or guest_status. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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