Guest Pending Changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the read-only safety profile. The description adds little beyond the title—it only clarifies that 'pending changes' apply to vm or lxc types and does not describe the response shape or edge cases.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core operation and supported resource types are conveyed immediately.

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 lookup with three clearly described parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. It omits any detail about the pending-changes response format, but the absence of an output schema does not prevent correct invocation.

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 description maps the type enum to concrete resources ('VM (type=vm) or LXC container (type=lxc)'), adding meaning where the schema only provides an enum. Node and vmid are already well described in the schema, so the description fills the remaining gap.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and a precise object ('pending configuration changes'), and it names the resource types (VM and LXC container). It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like proxmox_guest_config or proxmox_guest_status.

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 phrasing implies the tool should be used when the agent needs unapplied configuration changes for a VM or container, but it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. Selecting among the many guest-related siblings is left to inference.

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