get_proxmox_vm_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies reading). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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, clear sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple status-retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'status' includes (running/stopped, resource usage, etc.), doesn't mention authentication requirements for Proxmox access, and provides no context about error handling or response format. Given the complexity of infrastructure management tools, this leaves significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'VM or container' which aligns with the 'vm_type' parameter but doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a specific VM or container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_vm_status' or 'get_proxmox_node_status', which reduces its differentiation value.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_vm_status', 'list_vms', and 'get_proxmox_node_status' available, there's no indication of when this Proxmox-specific status tool is preferred over more general alternatives.

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