proxmox_guest_config

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it is a read operation ('Get') but does not mention permissions, error handling, or the impact of invalid parameters. The user is left uninformed about potential failure modes.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool, though it could benefit from a brief note about what constitutes 'hardware configuration'.

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 output schema, the description should provide insight into the return value (e.g., 'returns CPU, memory, network config'). It fails to do so, leaving agents uncertain about what data to expect. The lack of context makes it less useful for automated selection.

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 67%, so the description partially compensates by explaining the 'type' parameter's purpose. However, it does not add new details for 'node' or 'vmid' beyond the schema descriptions. Overall, the description adds marginal value to parameter understanding.

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 tool retrieves hardware configuration for VMs and LXC containers, using the verb 'Get'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'proxmox_guest_status' or 'proxmox_guest_pending', which also involve reading guest information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'proxmox_guest_status' for runtime state or 'proxmox_guest_pending' for pending changes. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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