guest_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's consistency with a read-only operation is expected. It adds value by enumerating the exact metrics returned (power state, uptime, CPU/memory usage, disk/network I/O counters), giving the agent a precise expectation of output content.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded verb, no filler. Every phrase adds information about the return data.

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?

Given the read-only nature, a single integer parameter, and the existence of an output schema, the description fully captures the tool's purpose and expected data. No gaps for the agent to get lost.

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 description does not mention the vmid parameter directly, but it clarifies that the target is a VM or container, which maps naturally to the vmid. With only one obviously required integer parameter, the schema plus the description provide sufficient semantic meaning.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'live runtime status for a VM or container', listing concrete metrics (power state, uptime, CPU/memory, I/O). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like guest_config (static config) or list_guests (listing).

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 phrase 'live runtime status' implies real-time monitoring, which distinguishes it from configuration or lifecycle tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusion.

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