get_vm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention authentication, response format, or what 'summary details' entail. The output schema exists but is not referenced in the description, leaving gaps.

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 very short and front-loaded, consisting of a single purposeful phrase. However, it could benefit from additional context without losing conciseness, such as mentioning that it returns a summary of key VM properties.

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 presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained, but the description still lacks completeness. It does not specify the scope of 'summary,' prerequisites, or any constraints. The absence of annotations exacerbates the gap.

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 adds no meaning beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, both parameters (vm and vcenter_name) are left unexplained. The description does not clarify what values are expected or their purpose.

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 'Get VM summary details,' specifying a verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_vm_cpu or get_vm_disk, which target specific aspects, whereas this tool provides an overview.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_vms or specific get_vm_* tools. The phrase 'summary details' implies a broad overview, but without exclusion criteria or context, usage remains ambiguous.

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