Guest Configuration

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes that the operation is safe, and the description's 'Get' aligns with that annotation. The description adds useful scope (hardware configuration for vm/lxc) but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any additional behavioral traits; acceptable given the read-only annotation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the relevant type distinction, earning each word.

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?

For a simple read-only 3-parameter tool, the description plus schema and annotation are sufficient for correct invocation. It does not describe the output structure or explicitly exclude sibling tools, but the low complexity makes those gaps minor.

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?

The schema already documents 'node' and 'vmid' well, and the description compensates for the undocumented 'type' parameter by explaining that vm means VM and lxc means LXC container. This adds meaning beyond the raw enum values without duplicating schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('hardware configuration'), and immediately disambiguates the two target types (vm/lxc). This clearly separates it from runtime status tools and the config update sibling.

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 makes it clear that the tool applies to VM or LXC guests, but it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this over related siblings like proxmox_guest_status, proxmox_guest_pending, or proxmox_guest_config_update. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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