vm_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the '[READ]' tag is largely redundant. The description does add that node is optional and the VM is auto-located when omitted, plus that vmid/target come from Proxmox config, which is modestly useful beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown vmid.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation tag and a one-line purpose, followed by a compact Args block. The per-parameter restatement is justified given the schema has zero descriptions, so there is little waste.

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 read-only 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and every parameter adequately. The absence of output-schema documentation is not a gap since readOnlyHint and the field list convey the shape of the result.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and documents all three parameters: vmid as the numeric Proxmox VM id, target as the Proxmox target name from config, and node with its omit-to-auto-locate behavior. 'target' remains somewhat vague, but each parameter gets meaningful context beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return a VM's config') and enumerates the returned fields (cores, memory, ostype, boot order), which lets an agent know exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling vm_get, leaving some ambiguity about which to pick.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing it over vm_get or other VM tools, and no exclusions. The only usage-adjacent note ('omit to auto-locate the VM') is really a parameter default, not routing guidance.

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