Guest Status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description does not need to restate that. However, the description adds little behavioral detail beyond 'detailed status' — it does not mention what status fields are returned or whether the guest must be running.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Get detailed status') and immediately clarifies the supported resource types.

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 tool with three required parameters, the description is mostly adequate, but it is vague about what 'detailed status' actually includes and does not mention any return behavior. With no output schema, a bit more detail about the returned status information would make it more complete.

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 67%, with the 'type' parameter left undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by explicitly explaining that type=vm means VM and type=lxc means LXC container, adding meaning beyond the schema. Node and vmid are already described in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed status' for a VM or LXC container. It clearly identifies the operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from related sibling tools like proxmox_guest_list or proxmox_guest_config.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as proxmox_guest_config, proxmox_guest_pending, or proxmox_agent_info. The intended use is only implied by the word 'status', so the agent receives no explicit context about when this is the right choice.

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