proxmox_guest_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool lists VMs/containers with status, which is transparent about the read operation. However, it omits details like permissions needed, data freshness, pagination, or performance implications. The description is functional but lacks depth.

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?

A single concise sentence of about 12 words that immediately conveys the purpose. No unnecessary words. Perfect front-loading.

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 listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention whether results are paginated or include additional details, but the core functionality is clear. Missing some contextual completeness for advanced use cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'across the cluster' which schema doesn't, but parameters are already well-documented in schema. No extra semantic value added for the parameters.

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 'List all virtual machines and containers across the cluster with their status' uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('virtual machines and containers'), specifies scope ('across the cluster'), and mentions output ('status'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like proxmox_guest_status (single guest) and proxmox_guest_config (details).

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 implies usage for listing all guests, which is clear from context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., for a single guest's details) or mention of alternatives. The context is adequate but not fully explicit.

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