VNC Console Ticket

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

Annotations are all false, offering no safety profile. The description describes a 'get' operation but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what side effects it might have, or the nature of the returned ticket. The mention of elevated permissions is a prerequisite, not a behavioral description, and no information is given about how the ticket is used.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action, includes the key distinction (vm/lxc), and mentions the permission requirement. There is no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient.

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 tool is simple with three required parameters, but the description lacks information about the response format (since there is no output schema) and the intended use of the ticket. It does not explain what the agent should do with the ticket or how to connect to the VNC console, and it does not address potential error behavior for a tool requiring elevated permissions.

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 100%, so each parameter (node, vmid, type) is already described in the schema. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond restating the type enum, which is already in the schema. It does not clarify relationships or format constraints beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Get a VNC proxy ticket' and explicitly specifies the resource types (VM or LXC) via the type parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like proxmox_console_spice by naming VNC specifically, making the purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as proxmox_console_spice or proxmox_console_term. It only states the action and a permission requirement, without any 'when not to use' or reference to alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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