vm_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond those: it returns static configuration only, returns a single dict rather than a list envelope, and warns that an unknown name yields a teaching error instead of a match.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It covers return format, scope, error behavior, prerequisites, and sibling alternatives in a few sentences, with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and siblings, the description covers all needed invocation context: what it returns, when to use it, what to call first, and which tools cover adjacent concerns. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit return-shape statement.

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 both parameters (target and vm_name) are already meaningfully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that vm_name must be exact and tells the agent where to get it, but does not add substantially new parameter semantics.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about one VM' and enumerates the included areas (CPU, memory, disks, NICs, snapshots). It further differentiates from siblings by noting it returns a single detail dict, not the list envelope, and explicitly contrasts with vm_performance and vm_investigation_bundle.

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 is explicit about when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know the exact name' and instructs to obtain it from list_virtual_machines first. It also names alternatives for live CPU/memory, for correlated host/alarms/events data, and for reconfiguration, leaving no ambiguity.

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