vm_capabilities

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that no VM lease is acquired and that the operation targets a connected Windows 98 guest, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 one tightly worded sentence that front-loads the main action before the lease condition. No redundant or filler words are present.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with strong schema and annotation coverage, the description covers the core behavior and the key precondition (no lease). It does not spell out the return value structure, but the simple operation and the word 'capabilities' make the expected output clear enough for correct invocation.

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%, and the single parameter vm_name has a clear description ('Unique VM name configured in WIN98CTL.INI'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), names the resource ('connected Windows 98 guest capabilities'), and adds a distinguishing condition ('without acquiring the VM lease'). This clearly identifies what the tool does and sets it apart from lease-requiring VM operations.

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 'without acquiring the VM lease' provides clear usage context: this is the lightweight read path when a lease is not needed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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