SPICE Console Ticket

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the elevated-permission caveat, which is valuable, but it does not disclose other behaviors such as ticket expiry, side effects, or return format. Given the annotation coverage, the additional context is modest but present.

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 single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler and conveys the essential purpose and permission requirement efficiently.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns and how the ticket is to be used. It only states that a ticket is obtained, leaving the agent to infer the response structure and subsequent usage. For a low-complexity tool, this is a moderate gap, but the description is otherwise sufficient for 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%, with both parameters (node and vmid) already documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('SPICE proxy ticket'), and the target ('QEMU VM'), distinguishing it from sibling console tools like proxmox_console_vnc and proxmox_console_term. It also adds a meaningful prerequisite ('requires elevated permissions').

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 notes the permission requirement, which is useful context, but it does not explicitly specify when to use SPICE over the alternative console tools (VNC or terminal) or provide any exclusions. Since siblings exist, more guidance on selection would be helpful, but the protocol name itself implies its use case.

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