Terminal Console Ticket

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

The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the requirement for elevated permissions. It also implies a read-like retrieval operation through 'Get,' but does not disclose the returned ticket format, how it should be consumed, expiration behavior, or whether issuance has side effects. Since annotations provide no contradicting signals, this is moderate but not rich transparency.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and resource before the scope and permission note. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

The schema fully documents the three required parameters and the core purpose is clear. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the returned terminal proxy ticket looks like or how the agent should use it, which is important for a ticket-issuing tool. The elevated-permission note helps, but the missing return-value guidance leaves a noticeable gap.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description adds a small semantic mapping by explaining that type=vm refers to a VM and type=lxc to a container, but this largely restates the enum values already present in the schema. No additional parameter semantics such as constraints or relationships are provided.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('terminal proxy ticket'), and scopes it to VM or LXC container via the type parameter. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like proxmox_console_vnc or proxmox_console_spice, so an agent may need to infer the difference.

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 only usage guidance is the parenthetical 'requires elevated permissions,' which is a prerequisite rather than a directive. There is no mention of when to choose this tool over proxmox_console_vnc, proxmox_console_spice, or proxmox_lxc_exec, nor any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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