Guest Agent Command Execution

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

Annotations already establish destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior, so the description adds only the elevated-permissions caveat for status. That is useful, but it does not disclose the two-step exec/status interaction or guest-side prerequisites.

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 compact, front-loaded clause that states the mechanism and then enumerates the operation modes without redundancy. Every clause contributes operational 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?

Even with the schema, the description omits the central workflow: exec returns a pid that status then consumes, and it does not say what either operation returns given there is no output schema. Prerequisites such as the QEMU agent being installed/running in the guest are also absent, making correct invocation harder for an agent.

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 coverage is 89%, but the operation parameter carries no schema description; the tool description supplies meaning for its enum values ('exec: run command', 'status: check execution status') and adds the permission requirement. This goes beyond the bare enum names.

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 identifies the action ('Execute commands via QEMU agent') and breaks out the two operations (exec, status) with distinct behaviors. It distinguishes the tool from LXC execution by specifying QEMU agent, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives such as proxmox_lxc_exec or proxmox_agent_file. It gives no workflow guidance (e.g., use exec first, then status with the returned pid), only notes that status requires elevated permissions.

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