pve_vm_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by describing a read operation. It details the returned data (status, cpu/memory, network/disk I/O, uptime, guest agent) and includes the source endpoint. This adds significant context beyond annotations.

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 (~4 sentences) with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then specifies scope, required parameter, optional parameter, and return data. Every sentence adds value.

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 read-only status tool, the description covers all essential aspects: target, parameters, and return content. An output schema exists but is not provided; however, the description already enumerates key fields, so it is complete enough.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden. It explains that vmid identifies the VM/CT and node is optional and auto-resolved. This provides meaningful guidance for both parameters, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Live runtime status of one VM or container.' It specifies the resource (single VM/CT) and the action (get status). Among siblings, this tool uniquely provides live status, distinguishing it from config, power, or backup tools.

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?

It provides explicit context: 'Applies to a single VM or CT, located by vmid (node optional and auto-resolved).' This tells the agent when to use it and that node can be omitted. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use, but the purpose is self-evident given the sibling set.

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