get_proxmox_vm_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's burden is lower. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., no mention of rate limits, authentication specifics, or the nature of the status data). It meets the minimum but doesn't enrich 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 a single concise sentence (9 words) with no wasted text. It is appropriately front-loaded for a straightforward read operation, though it could potentially be expanded slightly to cover output details without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite good schema and annotations, the description fails to explain what 'status' includes or what the return type is. For a status-checking tool, agents need to know the structure or meaning of the response. Without output schema or description, this is incomplete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters, including an enum for 'vm_type' with default. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 status of a specific VM or container', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'control_vm' (which modifies state) and 'get_proxmox_node_status' (which targets nodes).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_vm_status' or 'manage_proxmox_vm'. The description lacks explicit context for when-not-to-use or preferred scenarios.

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