vm_list

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

The description discloses that it is a read operation ([READ]) and explains how it scans nodes (given node, default node, or all cluster nodes). This is good transparency, though it does not mention authentication or rate limits, which are not critical for a list tool.

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 concise (~100 words) and well-structured: first sentence captures the core, then expands on scope, then lists parameters. No superfluous information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's input and behavior. It mentions return fields but lacks details on error handling or edge cases, which is acceptable for a list tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations for both parameters: target (Proxmox target name) and node (node name), including their defaults and interaction. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it lists QEMU VMs with specific fields (name, vmid, status, cpu, mem). It distinguishes from vm_get, which provides full status of a single VM, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (for listing VMs in a node/cluster) and when to use the alternative vm_get (for full status of a single VM). It also explains the scanning behavior across nodes, providing clear context for usage.

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