proxmox_lxc_exec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the execution method but does not explain whether the command runs synchronously, what happens on failure, or what the tool returns (e.g., stdout/stderr). The timeout parameter is mentioned in the schema but not highlighted in the description. Important behavioral traits are missing.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the action and method. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate prerequisite line), but overall it is concise without unnecessary words.

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 the tool's complexity (executing commands inside a container) and the absence of an output schema, the description should at least mention the return value (e.g., command output, exit code). It also lacks explanation of the 'elevated' requirement. The description is incomplete for an execution tool, leaving agents to guess expected behavior.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all 4 parameters, providing descriptions for each. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not explain that 'command' should be a valid shell command or how to handle special characters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Execute a command inside an LXC container'. It specifies the method (SSH + pct exec) and distinguishes from sibling tools like proxmox_agent_exec (which targets VMs, not containers). The verb 'Execute' combined with the resource 'LXC container' is specific and unambiguous.

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 running commands inside an LXC container but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like proxmox_agent_exec or others. It mentions prerequisites (elevated + PROXMOX_SSH_ENABLED=true), which provides some usage context, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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