Proxmox MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.3.0
Disambiguation4/5
Despite the large number of tools, most have distinct purposes thanks to clear naming and detailed descriptions. Some potential overlap exists (e.g., get_node_storage_status vs list_node_storage), but descriptions help differentiate. An agent may still face challenges due to the sheer volume.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_vm, list_vms, delete_storage). The naming convention is uniform throughout, making it predictable for agents.
Tool Count1/5
With 286 tools, the surface is extremely bloated. While Proxmox is complex, this number is excessive and likely mirrors every API endpoint. A more streamlined set with combined operations (e.g., generic resource management) would be more appropriate.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers virtually every aspect of Proxmox management: VMs, containers, storage, networking, Ceph, HA, firewall, users, backups, SDN, etc. No obvious gaps exist, and even advanced operations like guest agent commands and VNC proxies are included.
Average 3.3/5 across 233 of 286 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 2 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 17 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 30, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description claims 'Create' but the name suggests 'get', which is an internal inconsistency. It does not disclose whether the tool creates a temporary proxy or retrieves an existing one, nor does it explain side effects or authentication needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the first sentence is misleading due to the verb contradiction. Conciseness is achieved but at the expense of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even though an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the proxy connection is used. Missing context about SPICE protocol, lifetime of the proxy, and relation to other console tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage. The description only repeats parameter names 'node' and 'vmid' without adding any meaning (e.g., valid ranges, format, or relationship to the proxy).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Create a SPICE proxy connection' but the tool name starts with 'get', implying retrieval. The verb 'Create' contradicts the name, causing confusion. Also, there is a sibling tool 'get_vm_vncproxy' with similar purpose, but the description does not differentiate between SPICE and VNC.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_vm_vncproxy'. The description does not specify the context for SPICE proxy usage or mention any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Create a new group' without details on idempotency, permissions, side effects, or whether the group is operational immediately. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, but it includes an unnecessary 'Args:' section that just repeats the schema. Still, it is concise. However, the structure could be improved by integrating param docs into the main description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description still fails to cover essential aspects like return value structure, error conditions, or the effect of creating a group on permissions. It is incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. However, it merely restates param names ('groupid: Group ID. comment: Description.') without adding meaning beyond the schema fields. The parameter 'comment' is noted as 'Description', but the schema already indicates it's a string with a default. No semantic value added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new group' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (group). Among siblings like create_user, create_role, the purpose is distinct. However, it lacks context on what a group represents (e.g., access control), but the verb+resource is specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use create_group versus alternatives or prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it or which scenarios it suits, relying entirely on the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but fails to disclose any safety aspects, permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but lacks substance; it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The parameter listing does little to enhance clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be described. However, the description is vague about what 'configuration' entails beyond the examples. It is minimally adequate for a simple single-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description merely repeats 'node: The node name,' adding no meaning beyond the schema field title. No additional semantics or constraints are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a node's configuration, listing examples like description and wakeonlan. This distinguishes it from other get_node_* tools, though it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_node_status or get_node_dns. There are no prerequisites or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is silent on these critical aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of one short sentence and a parameter listing. While it avoids verbosity, it could be more structured to improve readability and include essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, list operation with an output schema), the description is too sparse. It omits the output structure, prerequisites, and relationship to other Ceph tools, leaving the agent without sufficient context for proper invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides minimal semantic information for the 'node' parameter, stating it is 'the node name.' Since schema coverage is 0%, this adds some value beyond the raw schema but is insufficient to fully clarify usage or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states this tool lists Ceph pools, matching the name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_ceph_fs or list_ceph_osds that also list Ceph components. The inclusion of the 'node' parameter suggests scoping, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of when to use list_ceph_pools instead of get_ceph_config or list_ceph_osds. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present. The description only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or side effects. It does not add value beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief (two sentences). While concise, it omits necessary details like output description or usage notes, resulting in under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a single required parameter and an output schema, the description is only partially complete. It does not explain that the VNet must exist, what the output contains beyond 'subnets', or any error conditions. The output schema compensates for return format, but broader context is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal value: it labels the parameter 'vnet' as 'VNet ID', which is already implied by the schema name 'vnet'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more detail (e.g., format, usage), but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List subnets) and the resource (SDN VNet). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling 'list_sdn_vnets' or other list tools. The phrasing 'for an SDN VNet' implies it is scoped to a specific VNet, which offers some differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_sdn_vnets for listing all VNets. The description does not mention any context or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states creation, omitting side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, but the args list is integrated without clear structure. No front-loading of critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool, the description lacks details like what happens on duplicate, required permissions, or references to related resources (e.g., pool membership). Output schema exists but is not used.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal value: 'poolid: Pool ID, comment: Description' is trivial. Parameters are not fully explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a resource pool,' which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_container or create_vm, but 'pool' is distinct enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_pool or delete_pool, nor are there prerequisites or conditions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states it creates a role, implying a write operation, but no further behavioral details are given (e.g., idempotency, permissions required, side effects). Since no annotations exist, the description should carry the full burden, but it does not.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and a parameter list, but it sacrifices completeness. It could be more informative without being overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the schema and existence of an output schema, the description fails to cover important context like uniqueness constraints, error conditions, or typical usage patterns for role creation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema coverage at 0%, the description adds minimal value. It provides an example format for 'privs' but does not explain 'roleid' semantics or acceptable privilege values beyond the example.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Create' with the resource 'role', making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'update_role', which could cause confusion for an agent deciding between creation and modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like update_role. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as ensuring the role doesn't already exist, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description is minimal and fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as destructive nature, side effects, or permissions. The description does not compensate for the absence of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise but at the expense of completeness. Front-loaded but too short.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite existence of output schema, the description is woefully incomplete for a deletion tool, lacking details on return values, side effects, or implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only parameter 'zone' with description 'Zone ID' adds marginal meaning beyond schema title. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'SDN zone', distinguishing it from siblings like create_sdn_zone and get_sdn_zone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, no when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as irreversibility, dependencies, or effects on other resources. The description only states the action without mentioning consequences or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with one clear sentence and a parameter list. However, the parameter list is essentially a repetition of the schema and does not earn its place by adding value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a deletion operation, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what happens upon deletion, whether it is reversible, or any effects on related entities. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description merely lists the parameter names (node, storage, volume) without adding any semantic meaning beyond the schema titles. No formats, constraints, or usage examples are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete a volume from storage' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_storage' and 'delete_container_snapshot' by specifying 'volume' as the target, but does not explicitly differentiate from them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_storage' or other delete operations. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits). For a tool with 0% annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two lines with no superfluous information. Every sentence (one for tool purpose, one for parameter) is relevant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists (not shown), the description lacks usage context and behavioral details. Given the low complexity (1 param), it is still incomplete without guidance on when to use or what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and description only restates 'Backup job ID' which adds minimal value beyond the schema's type string. No format or constraints are clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get details of a specific backup job,' specifying verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_backup_jobs' or 'get_backup_job_included_volumes'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions the required parameter without context on prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. It only says 'recent events' and mentions max_entries, but omits output format, ordering, filtering, authentication, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool among many similar ones.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short with one sentence and an argument line, but lacks a front-loaded summary. It is concise but could be more structured to include usage context without significant bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite low complexity and presence of output schema, the description fails to define what constitutes the cluster log, its relationship to other logs (e.g., node journals), or how to effectively use the max_entries parameter. It lacks completeness for reliable tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It states 'max_entries: Max log entries' which only minimally clarifies the parameter's role. It does not mention the default value (50) or explain the meaning of 'max' (e.g., most recent). The value added over the schema is negligible.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the cluster log (recent events), using the verb 'get' and resource 'cluster log'. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_task_log or get_node_journal but does not explicitly differentiate them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not disclose any side effects, permissions needed, or error behavior. The minimal description leaves uncertainty about what 'configuration' entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with a clear header and argument list. However, it is too terse, providing just the bare minimum without additional helpful context that could fit in a similar length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is partially adequate but fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to select it among many sibling tools. No information about HA groups or when to retrieve configuration is given.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'group'. The description adds 'group: Group ID', which minimally clarifies the parameter but lacks details on format, allowed values, or relationship to other resources.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get HA group configuration', clearly indicating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_ha_groups' and 'get_ha_resource' by specifying the resource type (HA group) and action (get).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_ha_resource' or 'list_ha_groups'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context of use, or when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description lacks any disclosure of behavioral traits such as read-only, destructive, or authentication requirements. Minimal information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is short but under-specified; does not earn its space with efficient, helpful detail. A single-line description with a pseudo-args line could be more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not explain return values or behavior. It is incomplete for a list tool, lacking details on the output format or scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds 'The node name.' for the parameter, which is slightly more than the schema, but with 0% schema coverage, the burden is high and the added value is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists available package updates on a node, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'run_apt_update' which performs updates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use or not use this tool, no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. It simply describes what it does.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The presence of an output schema is mentioned but not described, leaving return format unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences, but it lacks necessary detail. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of completeness, making it minimally viable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of many sibling firewall tools and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'firewall options' entails, how the output is structured, or how it differs from similar tools like get_cluster_firewall_options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds 'The node name' for the node parameter, which is minimally informative given that schema coverage is 0%. It repeats the parameter name's implication without adding details like valid format, range, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves firewall options for a specific node, using the verb 'get' and resource 'firewall options'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_cluster_firewall_options due to the node-specific scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_node_firewall_log or get_container_firewall_options. There are no prerequisites or context cues about appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention permissions, error handling, or any side effects. For a read-only list operation, this is minimally acceptable but still lacks detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, but it omits useful context that could be added without much bloat. It is concise at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic action but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context. It is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only adds 'The node name' for the node parameter, which adds marginal value over the schema's title. More detail about the node format or constraints would improve score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List USB hardware devices') and the resource ('on a node'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_node_hardware_pci, though it does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description simply states what it does without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, required permissions, or any side effects. Merely stating 'Get' implies read-only but lacks explicit detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two lines) with an 'Args' section, but it is under-specified. It is concise but at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what 'IPAM plugin configuration' includes or what the return format is. For a simple one-parameter tool, it lacks sufficient detail to fully understand the tool's context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only parameter 'ipam' is described as 'IPAM ID', adding minimal meaning beyond the schema's 'Ipam' title. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate more, but it does not provide format, validation, or source information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Get' and resource 'IPAM plugin configuration' clearly indicate the action and object. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'list_sdn_ipams' which lists all IPAMs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_sdn_ipams'. The description only states what it does, not when or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without revealing side effects, error handling, read-only nature, or pagination. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary context for brevity. It is not wasteful but is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description does not explain the output structure or any constraints. It lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description only repeats the parameter name and type ('node: The node name.'). With 0% schema description coverage, it adds minimal value over the schema. No format, constraints, or usage examples are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List firewall rules for a node' with a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_vm_firewall_rules by specifying 'node', but does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_cluster_firewall_rules, list_container_firewall_rules, or list_vm_firewall_rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It only states the action but does not disclose behavioral traits such as requiring the container to be suspended, potential side effects, or permissions needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but lacks substance. The Args section merely repeats parameter names without value, making it inefficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description should mention what the tool returns. It also fails to provide adequate information about the parameters or the effect of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only lists parameter names without explaining their meaning or providing any additional context. The Args section is redundant with the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'resume' and the resource 'container', distinguishing it from sibling tools like suspend_container, stop_container, and start_container.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use resume_container versus alternatives such as start_container or suspend_container. The description lacks context about prerequisites or when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'Start a container' without disclosing side effects, behavior if already running, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very short but not overly verbose. However, it could be more informative while remaining concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description omits return values, error conditions, and prerequisites. An output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only lists parameter names (node, vmid) without adding meaning. No explanation of expected values or formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Start a container' which is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stop_container, shutdown_container, and start_vm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., bulk_start_guests) or prerequisites (e.g., container must exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the creation action without disclosing behavioral traits like permission requirements, side effects, or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it lacks structured sections like usage notes or examples, which would be beneficial.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values are not required, but the description omits any context about prerequisites, limitations, or related concepts. For a simple create tool, minimal completeness is acceptable, but it could include more.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value: 'Group name' for group and 'Description' for comment, which closely mirrors the schema titles. It does not provide format constraints or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new firewall security group' with a specific verb and resource. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_firewall_group_rule, the distinct resource (group vs rule) is implied.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_firewall_group_rule or other firewall-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states creation, omitting traits like idempotency, side effects, permissions, or expected behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, which aids quick reading but omits essential details. It is not overly wordy, but the brevity compromises completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the lifecycle (e.g., need to add entries afterward) and does not explain the return value beyond what the output schema provides.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning beyond the schema. However, it merely restates the parameter names ('IP set name', 'Description') without additional semantics like allowed formats, constraints, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Create a new firewall IP set' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_firewall_ipset_entry' which adds to an existing set, though no explicit differentiation is made in the text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about the environment or intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete an HA group' without mentioning irreversibility, dependencies, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct but overly terse. While it avoids unnecessary words, it lacks substance to be genuinely helpful. One sentence is acceptable but more detail is needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what happens on success or failure. For a delete operation, information about confirmation, error conditions, or return values is missing, making the description incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description merely restates the parameter name 'group: Group ID' with no additional meaning. The input schema already provides the same information, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds minimal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete an HA group', which is a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_ha_group', 'update_ha_group', 'get_ha_group', and 'list_ha_groups'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for deletion such as whether the group must be empty.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the parameters without mentioning whether the download is destructive, the nature of the response (e.g., binary stream), or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and includes an organized 'Args' list, making it easy to scan. It is front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence is informative, though minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and an output schema (which may cover return format), the description lacks details on the output type, size limits, or prerequisites. For a download tool, more contextual completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It provides minimal explanation: 'The node name', 'Storage ID', 'Backup volume ID', and 'Path of the file to download from the backup'. This adds little beyond the parameter names, especially for node, storage, and volume.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Download a file from a vzdump backup', which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_backup_file_restore, but does not explicitly differentiate from get_vzdump_extractconfig.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_backup_file_restore or get_vzdump_extractconfig. The description implies usage for downloading a file from a backup but lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only implies a read operation via 'Get', but lacks details on side effects, auth requirements, or output behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. However, it may be too minimal, missing important context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not clarify what CRUSH rules are or what the API returns, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds 'The node name', which is trivial and does not explain valid values or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get Ceph CRUSH rules', specifying the verb and resource. The resource name is unique among sibling Ceph tools, but no explicit differentiation from other 'get' commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or conditions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits beyond purpose. It does not mention side effects, failure modes, or whether the container must be running (implied but not explicit). The description is too minimal for a retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a clear purpose sentence followed by parameter definitions. No extraneous text. However, given the lack of parameter details, it might be too brief to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description lacks crucial context: it does not specify prerequisites (e.g., container must be running), error conditions, or how this tool fits among the many get_* siblings. The description is insufficient for a tool interacting with a specific resource.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It lists 'node: The node name' and 'vmid: The container ID', which are slightly helpful but still vague. No examples, formats, or additional context are provided to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves network interfaces and IPs of a running container, distinguishing it from many get_* tools that fetch other container details. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_container_config or get_vm_interfaces (if exists).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other get_* container tools). There is no mention of preconditions, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states 'Get' which implies read-only but does not disclose potential errors, permissions required, or other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short with a clear sentence and an args list, but the parameter documentation is too sparse. It balances conciseness and structure adequately but lacks depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with an output schema, the description is acceptably complete but could be improved by explaining what certificate info is returned (e.g., expiry, issuer).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds 'The node name' which is minimal. It does not explain the format or constraints of the node parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get certificate info for a node' with a specific verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'order_node_certificate'. However, it lacks specificity on what 'certificate info' includes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., order_node_certificate). There is no mention of prerequisites or context of use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full burden. It states the tool generates a report but does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, required permissions, or potential impact on the node. The name 'get' implies read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences plus an Args section) and front-loaded with purpose. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but not vastly wasteful. Overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at what the report contains or its structure. It does not, leaving the agent without key context. The tool is simple but the description is too minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds 'The node name' for the node parameter, which barely extends the schema's type 'string'. No details on format, valid values, or examples are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a system report for a node and labels it as useful for diagnostics. The verb 'generate' and resource 'system report' are specific, but the description does not explicitly differentiate this tool from other get_node_* diagnostics tools like get_node_status or get_node_config.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'useful for diagnostics' is generic and does not specify when a system report is needed compared to other diagnostics tools listed among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read operation ('Get') but lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or what exactly constitutes 'firewall options'. With no annotations and minimal description, behavioral transparency is poor.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, consisting of one sentence plus parameter labels. However, it is arguably too minimal, lacking depth that would warrant a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and only two simple parameters, the description should clarify what the output represents and any preconditions. It fails to do so, leaving ambiguity about what 'firewall options' entails.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While the description lists the two parameters with basic identifications ('The node name', 'The VM ID'), it adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain expected formats, constraints, or relationships.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves firewall options for a QEMU VM, using a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't clarify what 'options' includes (e.g., settings vs. rules) or differentiate from siblings like get_vm_firewall_rules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as get_vm_firewall_rules, set_vm_firewall_options, or get_container_firewall_options. The description fails to provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Create a VNC proxy connection ticket', implying mutation, while the tool name starts with 'get', suggesting a read operation. This inconsistency is misleading. No annotations are provided, so the description fails to clarify the actual behavior (e.g., whether it creates a ticket or retrieves one).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the key purpose. The parameter listing is clear but could be integrated more naturally. Despite the verb-name mismatch, the structure is efficient with minimal wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool modifies state (creates a ticket) and has no annotations, the description should explain preconditions, effects, and output. It does not mention return values, safety implications, or any prerequisites. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of behavioral context here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add substantial meaning. However, it merely restates parameter titles (e.g., 'The node name', 'The VM ID') without additional context. Only 'Use WebSocket connection' provides some value. This is insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool creates a VNC proxy connection ticket for console access. However, the verb 'Create' contradicts the tool name 'get', causing potential confusion. Additionally, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_vm_spiceproxy' which likely serves a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'get_vm_spiceproxy'. The description does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for proper selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It only states the action, omitting traits like read-only nature, idempotency, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, which is efficient, but at the cost of missing essential information. It is not verbose, but also not sufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values are not needed. However, the description lacks any background on what a Ceph manager is or the expected node name format, making it barely adequate for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It only labels 'node' as 'The node name', adding minimal semantics beyond the schema's type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and resource (Ceph managers), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish from closely related sibling tools like list_ceph_monitors or list_ceph_osds.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. The agent receives no hints about filtering or scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, permission requirements, or side effects. The description only says 'List...', implying read-only but not explicitly stating it. No mention of auth needs, error behavior, or impact on state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two sentences, with no redundant information. However, the structure could be improved by using a more organized format (e.g., separating the main action from parameter details), but it remains efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (assumed present but not shown), yet the description does not explain return values or pagination. Given the simple nature of listing volume groups, the description should state what fields are returned or that the list may be empty. Lack of completeness for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter 'node' has 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details. The description adds only 'The node name', which is virtually identical to the parameter name. No additional context like allowed format, required permissions, or relation to other components is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states verb 'List' and resource 'LVM volume groups' on a node, clearly differentiating from sibling list tools like 'list_lvmthin_pools' or 'list_storage'. However, the tool name says 'volumes' while description says 'volume groups', creating a potential conceptual mismatch that slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_lvmthin_pools, list_storage_content). No prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios mentioned, leaving the agent without context to select the appropriate tool among many similar list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or any other behavioral traits. The minimal description provides no transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at five words. However, it may be too minimal for a tool with no annotations, missing necessary context. It earns its place but could benefit from slight expansion.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it lacks any context about the tool's role or relationship to siblings. The description is insufficient for the agent to fully understand when or why to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. Baseline is 3. The description adds the concept of 'notification targets' but does not elaborate on what constitutes one, so it only slightly adds meaning beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all notification targets' clearly states the verb and resource. It specifies 'notification targets' which is a distinct concept from sibling tools like 'list_notification_endpoints' and 'list_notification_matchers', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions ACPI (graceful reboot) but does not explain whether the operation is asynchronous, if a response confirms completion, or what happens if the VM is already powered off. Important safety details 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with the main action in the first sentence and parameters listed compactly. No unnecessary text, but the brevity sacrifices completeness. It earns a 4 for being well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutative VM operation with no annotations and an output schema (whose contents are unexplained), the description is too sparse. It omits prerequisites (VM must be running?), effects, and return value context. An agent would need external knowledge to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description bears full responsibility for parameter clarity. The description only restates parameter names and adds trivial explanations ('The node name', 'Wait timeout in seconds'). It does not explain semantics like what timeout=0 means, valid ranges, or how timeout affects behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reboot') and resource ('VM'), and specifies the method ('via ACPI'), which gives a clear purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'reset_vm' or 'shutdown_vm', which could lead to confusion about which tool to use for graceful vs. forceful restarts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reset_vm for unresponsive VMs). The description implies a graceful reboot but doesn't state prerequisites or contraindications, leaving the agent without clear decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'send a test notification,' without disclosing whether it modifies state, requires permissions, or has side effects. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the action. The parameter list is separated clearly. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points or more explanation) without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description should provide more context about the purpose of the test, expected outcome, or prerequisites. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand when and how to use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds 'name: Target name,' which provides basic meaning but lacks detail such as expected format or source (e.g., ID vs name). It does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Send a test notification to a target,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_notification_targets, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not explain the context (e.g., after creating a target) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete,' without disclosing destructiveness, permissions, or irreversibility. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two short sentences with no wasted words. For a simple delete operation, this is concise, though it could benefit from more structure like listing effects.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter and no annotations, but the description omits context about what happens upon deletion (e.g., irreversibility, resource dependencies). This leaves the agent underinformed for a destructive action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It describes 'poolid' as 'Pool ID,' which adds basic context but lacks format, source, or constraints. This is minimal compensation for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a resource pool,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_pool, update_pool, and get_pool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or when not to use it, which is needed given many sibling delete tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing traits like read-only nature, required permissions, or output details. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description itself is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one line for the parameter. Every word earns its place with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and the existence of an output schema, the description omits important context such as prerequisites, dependencies, or usage scenarios. It is too minimal for a tool with many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds only 'The node name' for the node parameter, which essentially repeats the schema field title. It does not explain how the node name is used or provide additional context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool gets the 'raw Ceph configuration', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_ceph_crush_rules or get_ceph_flags, leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other Ceph query tools. The agent is left to infer context from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full weight for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not specify permissions, if the node must be online, or any side effects. The output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence plus an argument list. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly expanded for clarity without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks details about whether the operation queries a live node, error conditions, or the scope of 'DNS settings'. It is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It only explains 'node: The node name' without specifying format, valid values, or constraints. This provides minimal additional value beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get DNS settings for a node', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_node_network' and 'list_sdn_dns', but could be more specific about which DNS settings are retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_node_config' or 'list_sdn_dns', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Get network statistics') but does not disclose any additional behaviors such as potential impact, permission requirements, or rate limits. There is no mention of the output format or whether it aggregates data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of a single line and an argument list. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured with explicit sections.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains the basic function but lacks usage context, such as when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings or if any node state is required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter description 'node: The node name.' adds minimal value beyond the schema's type 'string' and parameter name 'node'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate with more detail, but it only restates the parameter's role without specifying allowed values or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'network statistics for a node' with the qualifier 'per-interface traffic', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_node_network (likely configuration) and get_node_network_interface (likely interface settings). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_node_network_interface.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 get_node_network or get_node_network_interface. The description lacks context for when per-interface traffic statistics are needed or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose without mentioning read-only nature, required permissions, or what 'network interface configuration' entails (e.g., full list vs summary).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences. Every word serves a purpose, and critical information is front-loaded. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the response will contain (e.g., interfaces, IPs, status). It lacks context about the scope of 'network configuration' and how this tool fits into the broader node management workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds 'The node name' for the parameter, which restates the obvious. It does not provide format hints, constraints, or examples beyond what the parameter name and type imply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('network interface configuration for a node'), which distinguishes it from unrelated siblings. However, it does not differentiate from the closely related sibling 'get_node_network_interface', which likely retrieves a single interface vs the full configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_node_network_interface' for a specific interface, or other configuration tools). The description assumes the agent knows the context without hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only says 'Get subscription status', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any side effects or behavioral traits. The burden is on the description since annotations are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with purpose. Concise but not overly terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Has output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. With one parameter and a simple purpose, the description is adequate but lacks detail on what 'subscription status' includes. Could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter 'node'. Description adds 'The node name' but schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's title and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'subscription status', and scope 'for a node'. It distinguishes from other get_node_* tools like get_node_status, though 'subscription' might be slightly ambiguous for those unfamiliar with Proxmox.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. Among many similar get_node_* tools, the description provides no differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states 'Get pool configuration and members', implying a read-only operation, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as permission requirements, scope of returned data, or side effects. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description adds minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, with no wasted words. However, it is arguably too sparse, sacrificing clarity for brevity. Nevertheless, it is efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on when to use it, parameter details, and behavioral specifics. It is complete enough for a straightforward operation but could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats the parameter name as 'Pool ID.' It adds no explanation of format, source, or constraints. This is the bare minimum and does not help an agent correctly supply the value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Get' clearly indicates retrieval, and 'pool configuration and members' specifies the resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_pools', which likely retrieves multiple pools, or other 'get_*' tools. Purpose is clear but lacks distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'list_pools' or 'update_pool'. The description gives no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details', implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention permissions, side effects, or any constraints. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior beyond the surface level.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using a single sentence followed by a parameter list in docstring format. It contains no unnecessary fluff and is easy to parse. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return value explanation is not needed. With three required parameters and a generic purpose, the description provides minimal but adequate context for basic usage. However, it lacks behavioral and parameter details, making it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists the three parameters (node, storage, volume) with minimal explanations like 'The node name', which essentially repeat the parameter names. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should add more meaning, but it does not provide context on what values are acceptable or how these identifiers are structured.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get details about a specific volume in storage', specifying the action (get) and the resource (volume details). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_storage_config or get_storage_rrddata, which also retrieve storage-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. It simply states the basic action without guiding the agent on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description gives no behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, required permissions, output format). It fails to disclose anything beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with one sentence and a parameter list, but the parameter section is repetitive. Still, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description lacks context about what the default vzdump configuration is, its typical contents, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value: 'node: The node name' is nearly a restatement of the schema's title and type, offering little beyond the bare minimum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'default vzdump configuration for a node', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vzdump_extractconfig.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_vzdump_extractconfig, list_backup_jobs) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to state any side effects, performance characteristics, or assumptions. The description merely restates the tool name without adding behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two words plus a period, which earns high marks for brevity. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., a sentence) but is not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks essential context. It does not explain what SDN DNS plugins are, how the output is structured, or any related concepts. Given that there is an output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the schema is fully covered. The description adds the meaning of 'SDN DNS plugins' as the subject of listing, which is appropriate. Even though no parameter details are needed, the description provides enough context for what is being listed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('SDN DNS plugins'). It effectively communicates the basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_sdn_controllers, list_sdn_ipams, etc., which similarly start with 'list_sdn'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is too terse to inform the agent about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it lists pools, implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention permissions, side effects (e.g., performance impact), or the format of the output (though output schema exists). This is insufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—two sentences, no fluff. However, front-loading is adequate; each sentence serves a purpose, though one sentence explains the parameter, which is acceptable for a single param.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, for a list tool with many siblings, more context (e.g., typical use cases) would improve completeness. It is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It adds only 'The node name,' which is minimal and redundant with the parameter name. No additional clarification on expected format or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists ZFS pools on a node, with a specific resource ('ZFS pools') and scope ('on a node'). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'list_pools' or 'get_zfs_pool'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_zfs_pool' for specific pool details or 'list_pools' for other pool types. No when-not or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description merely states 'Reboot a container,' which implies a restart but offers no details on force vs graceful shutdown, impact on running processes, or return behavior. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure and falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence plus parameter list), which is efficient, but it omits important information. It is not overly verbose but sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description lacks details on return values, side effects, and how reboot differs from similar operations like shutdown+start. It is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains each parameter briefly ('node: The node name.' etc.), adding some meaning beyond the schema (which has only names and types). However, it doesn't elaborate on the timeout default or behavior, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Reboot a container,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_container or stop_container by using a different action. However, it does not elaborate on the exact meaning of reboot (e.g., that it involves a stop and start sequence).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like shutdown_container followed by start_container, or when to use timeout. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Update a group' without explaining side effects, idempotency, or what fields are affected. It lacks crucial context for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to provide necessary details for effective tool invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks essential context about the update operation, such as behavior on missing fields or validation, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description lists parameters with minimal explanations ('Group ID.', 'Description.'), adding little meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify defaults or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update a group,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_group, delete_group, and get_group by indicating a mutation operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparisons to other tools like create_group or update_user.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as migration type (live vs. offline), impact on guests, or required resources. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, but it is too brief to be fully effective. It earns points for conciseness but loses for lack of structure (e.g., no behavior section).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description provides no context on return values, error handling, or post-migration state. A bulk migration tool requires more detail for proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by stating 'target' is a node name and 'vms' are comma-separated VMIDs, but lacks details on constraints, format, or validation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Bulk migrate guests to a target node,' using a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from single-migration siblings like migrate_vm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply defines the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, authentication requirements, or impact on existing sessions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and direct, with a structured argument list. It is concise without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists but no return value or behavior is described. For a mutation tool, completeness requires stating success/failure indicators or side effects, which are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides format hints for 'userid' ('user@realm') but nothing for 'password', offering only partial added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Change a user's password' clearly states the verb and resource. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_user' and 'vm_agent_set_password', though it does not explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description is purely functional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Clone a container' without explaining consequences like independence of clones, effect on source, permissions needed, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the operation's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single-purpose opening line followed by a bullet list of arguments. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the format is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that goes unmentioned, the description fails to cover critical aspects like return values, error conditions, or cloning behavior (e.g., whether linked clones are supported). It is not complete enough for reliable tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'source node name', 'ID for the new container') add necessary meaning beyond parameter names. However, the explanations are minimal and lack details like allowed values or formatting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Clone a container,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It is specific to container cloning and distinct from sibling tools like clone_vm, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as migrate_container or convert_container_to_template. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose potential side effects such as data loss on the device or that node must be a Proxmox node. Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short with a clear initial sentence and a bulleted list of arguments. It is efficient but could be better structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a potentially destructive create operation, the description lacks important context about prerequisites, side effects, and when not to use it. The absence of annotations and low schema coverage make it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description attempts to explain parameters (node, name, device, add_to_storage). However, the explanations are minimal and do not cover constraints like device format or naming uniqueness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates an LVM volume group on a device. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_lvmthin or create_zfs_pool, which have similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there prerequisites or conditions for safe usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It states 'Create' (mutation) but omits details about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or failure handling. The minimal description does not adequately disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a front-loaded purpose statement and a structured 'Args:' list. It contains no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose, which prevents a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity (5 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema (context says true), the description is incomplete. It does not cover expected behavior when required params are missing, what the return value contains, or how the tool integrates with related operations (e.g., listing subnets). The agent may struggle to use the tool correctly with only this description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'subnet: Subnet CIDR (e.g. ''10.0.0.0/24'')'). This adds meaning beyond the schema titles, but the explanations are minimal and do not cover format constraints or semantics for all parameters (e.g., 'snat: Enable SNAT' lacks context).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a subnet for an SDN VNet', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'create_sdn_vnet' (which creates the VNet itself) and 'list_sdn_subnets' (which lists), though it does not explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the VNet must exist), when not to use it, or any context about creation order. The absence of usage guidance leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Create', implying mutation, but omits side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or any constraints beyond the parameter hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one line for the action followed by a clean parameter list with no extraneous text. Every token is necessary and well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema being present, the description fails to mention return values, prerequisites (e.g., zone must exist), or constraints on optional parameters. It leaves significant gaps for a 5-parameter creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes brief one-word descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'VNet ID', 'Zone ID', 'VLAN tag'), adding meaning beyond the raw schema names. However, it lacks detail on formats, valid values, or relationships, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create an SDN VNet', specifying a concrete action and resource. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create_sdn_subnet or create_sdn_zone, the resource name is unique and the action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_sdn_vnet, delete_sdn_vnet), nor does it mention prerequisites or context such as requiring an existing zone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. While it implies mutation by saying 'Create,' it fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The agent gets no warning about potential impacts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured as a clear list of parameter explanations following a concise opening sentence. While lengthy due to the number of parameters, it avoids unnecessary verbosity and is easy to parse. The first sentence effectively sets the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (17 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers parameter semantics but misses behavioral context like error conditions, prerequisites, or output expectations. It meets the minimum viability but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides brief explanations for all 17 parameters (e.g., 'Storage ID', 'Storage type', 'File system path'), adding substantial meaning beyond titles and defaults. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Create a new storage pool configuration,' which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from numerous sibling tools like create_lvm, create_lvmthin, create_directory_storage, etc., which also create storage configurations. The agent cannot easily determine when to use this generic tool versus the specific ones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely lists parameters without explaining prerequisites or contextual usage. The agent has to infer from the parameter list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description mentions the vmstate parameter hints at including RAM state, but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or behavior for running VMs. Limited behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single-sentence purpose followed by an Args list. It is efficiently structured, though the list is necessary due to lack of schema descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must exist), failure conditions, or any caveats, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It provides one-line explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'the node name'), which are minimal and barely add value beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a snapshot of a VM.' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_container_snapshot and delete_vm_snapshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_backup_job or create_vzdump. The description only lists parameters without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and lists parameters, omitting details like effects of 'force', error conditions, or return value. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short with a clear purpose sentence followed by a list of args. While concise, it could be better structured with front-loaded key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 params, none described in schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address prerequisites, side effects, or output schema (which exists but is not mentioned).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), so the description's explanations ('node: The node name', 'force: Force delete') add some meaning beyond type/name. However, explanations are minimal and vague, especially for 'force'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete a container snapshot,' which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_vm_snapshot' (VM snapshots) and 'delete_container' (entire containers).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool, such as prerequisites (snapshot existence) or when to use 'force' vs not. Among siblings like 'rollback_container_snapshot', there is no differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious deletion act. It does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or effects on referencing rules.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but overly terse, missing key details. It has no fluff but also no additional value beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers basic functionality but omits return value information and behavioral caveats, even though an output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds 'Alias name' to the parameter, slightly clarifying its purpose beyond the schema's title. However, with 0% schema coverage, more detail is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a firewall alias,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_firewall_alias and list_firewall_aliases, though it largely repeats the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or side effects. The description is purely functional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits like cascading effects, reversibility, or potential side effects of deleting a group.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but too terse. It front-loads the action but misses opportunities to add value without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks context about the consequences of deleting a group (e.g., impact on members, permissions, or related resources). Despite an output schema, the minimal description fails to provide sufficient guidance for an AI agent to use it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description 'groupid: Group ID' adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify format or constraints (e.g., required, expected length).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a group' clearly states the verb and resource. Among sibling tools, this is distinct from create_group and update_group, providing clarity on its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No prerequisites or context for deletion, such as whether the group must be empty or have no associated permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'Delete a role,' which implies a destructive action, but fails to mention irreversibility, effects on users with that role, required permissions, or error cases. This is inadequate for safe selection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with one sentence and a parameter list. No fluff, but it may be too terse. It earns points for efficiency but loses one for missing critical details while remaining brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given it is a delete operation and has an output schema (not shown), the description should explain consequences, prerequisites, and behavior. It provides none of this, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to safely use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds 'roleid: Role ID,' which minimally identifies the parameter but lacks format, constraints, or source. Given the high burden, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a role'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_role, update_role, list_roles, and get_role. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as updating a role instead of deleting it, or any prerequisites (e.g., ensuring no users are assigned to the role). The short text does not address context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description merely states 'Delete an SDN VNet' without disclosing behavioral traits like irreversibility, potential cascading effects (e.g., on subnets), or required permissions. The description carries the full burden but fails to add transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose. However, it could include more detail in the same space without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not mention output (though an output schema exists), side effects, or prerequisites, making it insufficient for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds only that 'vnet' is a 'VNet ID', which is minimal and already implied by the parameter name. It does not explain format, constraints, or valid values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'SDN VNet', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_sdn_zone' or 'create_sdn_vnet'. It 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., VNet must exist) or exclusions. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists parameters without any mention of consequences, permissions, or side effects of the deletion. The force parameter is explained in the description, which helps, but overall transparency is low.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, using a single sentence plus a parameter list. There is no unnecessary information, but it could be improved by front-loading crucial warnings or context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks complete context for a delete operation. It does not explain return values (though an output schema exists), error scenarios, or implications of the action. Given the complexity and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds a brief explanation for each parameter (e.g., 'Force delete even if snapshot is in use'). While it provides some meaning beyond the schema, it is minimal and mostly restates the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'VM snapshot', which is specific. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling snapshot tools like create_vm_snapshot or rollback_vm_snapshot beyond the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites, warnings, or context about when not to use it. The description is purely operational.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'recent tasks' without defining 'recent', and does not mention ordering, pagination, or rate limits. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence plus an Args line), which is concise but lacks formal structure. It uses markdown-like formatting for Args but does not separate purpose from usage. It could benefit from a brief note on scope or typical use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of cluster management and many sibling tools (get_cluster_log, list_node_tasks), the description is incomplete. It does not mention return format, pagination, or how to interpret results. The output schema is present but not explained, and the description offers no additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description only includes 'limit: Maximum number of tasks to return', which restates the parameter name without adding significant context like the default value (50) or allowed range. The parameter is not explained beyond its obvious meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List recent tasks across all nodes in the cluster', specifying the verb 'list', the resource 'tasks', and the scope 'across all nodes'. This distinguishes it from node-level counterparts like list_node_tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_node_tasks or get_task_status. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose read-only nature, permission requirements, or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and includes a structured 'Args' section. No wasted words, though it could be more compact by integrating the args into the description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values needn't be described, but the tool's simplicity leaves gaps: no mention of operation type (read), prerequisites, or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds minimal value by naming parameters and giving an example for 'disk'. However, explanations are brief and add little beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies 'Get S.M.A.R.T. health data for a disk' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_node_disks, which list disks but not health data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_node_disks for listing disks). No mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'Get detailed HA manager status' without detailing side effects, permissions, read-only nature, or what 'detailed' entails. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at four words, but it lacks detail for a tool that likely has a significant output. While efficient, it is under-specified for full clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description should still provide context about what information is returned. 'Detailed HA manager status' is too vague to give the agent a clear picture of the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. Schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description is not required to elaborate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets 'detailed HA manager status', specifying a verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_ha_status', which may have a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ha_status or get_ha_group. The description lacks context for optimal selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, consisting of one clear sentence and an args line; no extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema), the description is still too minimal, lacking information on expected behavior in edge cases or integration with workflows.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value by stating 'node: The node name,' which is already obvious from the parameter name and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves QEMU capabilities (CPU models, machine types) for a node, which is a specific and distinct purpose among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it; the description does not provide context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states what the tool does, not how it behaves (e.g., read-only operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or whether it returns cached data). This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and avoids verbosity, but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. A few more sentences could add value without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, list operation, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about behavior, return format, or any edge cases. It does not fully equip the agent to understand the tool's context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. It only adds 'The node name.', which is nearly tautological. It does not clarify the expected format (e.g., hostname, IP, VMID) or any constraints, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('physical disks on a node'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_disk_smart or list_node_storage by specifying 'physical disks'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent receives no information about prerequisites, scope (e.g., whether it includes all disks or only those attached to the node), or how it differs from similar tools like list_node_storage or get_disk_smart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get SDN controller configuration' without detailing what the configuration includes, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The output schema exists but its content is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and is free of unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured to include parameter details more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present but unknown content), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'SDN controller configuration' includes, leaving the agent uncertain about the return value and whether this tool fits a specific need.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds some value by stating 'controller: Controller ID', clarifying the parameter's role. However, it does not specify the format or constraints beyond being a string ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'SDN controller configuration', indicating it retrieves configuration for a specific controller. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_sdn_controllers' which lists all controllers, but does not explicitly differentiate in the description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_sdn_controllers' or other 'get_' tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, behavior when the VM has no cloud-init config, or read-only nature. With no annotations to compensate, more detail is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, with no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by parameter descriptions. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines), but it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple signature with two required parameters and an output schema (not shown), so the description is somewhat complete. However, it omits context about sibling tools and potential errors, which would improve usability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds 'The node name' and 'The VM ID' to the parameters, which are not present in the schema titles alone. However, given the low schema coverage (0%), more detailed semantics (e.g., format, constraints) would be beneficial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves Cloud-Init configuration for a VM. While there is a sibling tool 'dump_vm_cloudinit' that may serve a similar purpose, the description does not differentiate them, but the core function is well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dump_vm_cloudinit'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states 'Get', which implies a read operation, but fails to disclose any other behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, with a clear separation of purpose and parameter list. Every sentence is functional, but the lack of detail means conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described. The description does not explain prerequisites (e.g., snapshot must exist), the nature of the output, or error conditions. It is minimally viable but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description lists parameter names with trivial explanations ('The node name') that add no real meaning beyond the parameter name itself. It does not specify valid values, constraints, or relationships between parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'configuration stored in a VM snapshot', which is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'get_vm_config' (current config) and 'list_vm_snapshots'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_vm_config' or 'list_vm_snapshots'. No contextual conditions or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, safety, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits. It only states the basic purpose, which is insufficient for a mutation-free tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence and a parameter line. While efficient, it could be slightly more informative without adding bulk.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks context about the scope of the list (e.g., cluster-wide or per-node) and does not hint at the output structure, despite an output schema existing. It is insufficient for a tool with one required parameter and no other documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'node' is described as 'The node name.' This adds minimal value beyond the schema, which already indicates it's a required string. The description does not clarify the format, allowed values, or the effect of this parameter on the output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List Ceph metadata servers (MDS, for CephFS).' This clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (Ceph MDS servers), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_ceph_monitors or list_ceph_osds.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lacks information about permissions, behavior (e.g., whether services are running or stopped), or response format. The minimal description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic listing action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences) but includes an 'Args' section that duplicates schema information. It could be more concise by removing redundancy. It is not overly verbose, but some structure could be improved.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists) and the context signals, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral hints, which limits completeness for an agent deciding among many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description only repeats 'The node name' for the node parameter, adding no semantic value beyond the schema. The parameter meaning is obvious from its name, but the description fails to provide useful context or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List all system services on a node (pve, ssh, cron, etc.)', clearly indicating the verb and resource with examples. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that target VMs, containers, or other node operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_node_service or other listing tools. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks behavioral details beyond listing required parameters. With no annotations, it does not disclose that the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or any potential side effects. The agent must infer from the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at two short sentences plus argument list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then lists parameters efficiently. However, it may be too minimal in content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (list operation) and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines return structure), the description is moderately complete. However, it omits details like whether the list is sorted, paginated, or filtered, and does not mention required permissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds one-line explanations ('The node name', 'The VM ID') which provide minimal context beyond the parameter titles. This adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('firewall rules for a QEMU VM'). The tool name further reinforces this. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_container_firewall_rules, but the specificity is adequate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_cluster_firewall_rules or list_container_firewall_rules. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose whether migration is synchronous, if it affects service availability, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, more behavioral context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no fluff. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the parameter list is structured clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (migration) and absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error states, or post-migration behavior, despite having an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes parameter explanations (sid: Resource ID, node: Target node) that add value beyond the schema's type and title. However, it does not specify formats or constraints, and schema coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Request migration') and the resource ('HA resource' to a different node). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like migrate_vm or migrate_container, though it does not differentiate from relocate_ha_resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like relocate_ha_resource. Missing prerequisites or conditions for migration (e.g., HA resource must be in a certain state, node availability).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the relocation is synchronous, destructive, or requires specific permissions. Minimal indication of effect beyond the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise with a clear purpose sentence and simple parameter list. No wasted words, but could benefit from structured sections.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description omits many contextual details for a HA resource relocation, such as prerequisites, side effects, or confirmation steps. Even with an output schema, the description is too sparse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds basic meaning by labeling 'sid' as 'Resource ID' and 'node' as 'Target node', which goes beyond the schema's empty descriptions. However, it lacks detail like format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Request relocation of an HA resource to a different node') with specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like migrate_ha_resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any conditions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the operation 'apt update', which modifies the local package cache. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as network usage, time consumption, or the need for root privileges. The behavioral model is under-specified for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. The 'Args:' section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but does not harm brevity. Every phrase serves a purpose, though the entire description could be more concise by removing the restatement of parameter names.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, it lacks important context like side effects, prerequisites, or how it relates to other tools. The description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps that could mislead an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself lacks parameter descriptions. The description adds 'The node name' for the 'node' parameter, which clarifies its purpose (a node identifier). However, it does not specify format or constraints beyond what a string field implies. This provides some value but not comprehensive guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Refresh the package index on a node (apt update)'. It identifies the action (refresh/run) and the specific resource (package index/apt update). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'get_node_apt_update', the verb 'refresh' implies a state-changing operation, differentiating it from a read-only retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_node_apt_update'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., root access), or contexts where running apt update is appropriate (e.g., before installations). The lack of usage context limits the agent's ability to make informed decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior beyond 'suspend/freeze', but it does not explain effects on the container (e.g., resource release, network state, resume capability). The description is insufficient for understanding full impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, but it sacrifices essential behavioral details. It is overly terse, making it inadequate for a complete understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not indicate what the tool returns or how to interpret results. It omits prerequisites, side effects, and any state changes, leaving the agent unprepared for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter descriptions are trivial ('The node name', 'The container ID') and add no meaningful semantics beyond the schema field titles. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Suspend (freeze)') and the resource ('container'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'suspend_vm' or 'resume_container'. The verb-resource pair 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'shutdown_container' or 'stop_container'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks critical behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether updates are incremental or full replacements, what happens on error, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a major gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a lengthy parameter list without a concise summary. It lacks structured formatting (e.g., bullet points or sections) and includes unnecessary repetition (e.g., 'pos' mentioned twice). Not appropriately sized for a tool with 12 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain the return value or behavior (e.g., whether it returns the updated rule). It covers parameter meanings but misses operational context like idempotency or required permissions. Incomplete for a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 12 parameters, including possible values for 'action' and format for 'delete'. This significantly adds value beyond the bare schema, though some parameters like 'enable' could be clarified further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update a cluster-level firewall rule' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_cluster_firewall_rule and delete_cluster_firewall_rule, providing clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., rule must exist) or scenarios where delete or create would be more appropriate. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether the update is additive or replaces properties, if it requires existing VNet, or if changes are immediately applied. The simple 'Update' verb is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: a single sentence 'Update an SDN VNet.' followed by a clean parameter list. No extraneous words, front-loaded with purpose, and each line is necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what an SDN VNet is, what properties can be updated, or the effect of the operation. It is too brief to be fully contextual for a 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly lists parameters with brief semantics: 'vnet: VNet ID', 'tag: VLAN tag (-1 = don't change)', 'delete: Comma-separated properties to delete'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/title, compensating for 0% schema coverage, though explanations are minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an SDN VNet' clearly states the action and resource, but it essentially repeats the tool name without adding deeper context about what exactly updating entails. It distinguishes from create/delete siblings by using 'update', but lacks specificity about scope or effects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_sdn_vnet or delete_sdn_vnet. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where updating is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by noting the HTTP API requirement, but it fails to mention side effects, prerequisites, or the actual outcome of calling the tool. The agent is left uncertain about what happens after invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is fairly concise, with a single sentence plus a list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the list format is standard and could be integrated more naturally.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description lacks information about return values, error conditions, and prerequisites. The note about the HTTP API is critical but incomplete, and no context is provided about storage types or node requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by naming each parameter and specifying content type values ('iso', 'vztmpl', 'snippets', 'import'). However, it does not explain 'tmpfilename' or provide constraints like required formats, leaving some parameters underspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Upload a file (ISO, template, etc.) to storage', which conveys the primary action and resource type. However, the note about the HTTP API introduces ambiguity about the tool's actual role in the upload process, slightly reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_url_to_storage' or 'list_storage_content'. The only hint is the note about HTTP API, but it does not help an agent decide between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description solely states 'Delete a scheduled backup job' without disclosing behavioral details like confirmation, immediacy, impact on running jobs, or idempotency. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one line plus parameter list) but lacks structure and front-loading of key information. It is minimal but not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing, the description omits important context for a delete operation, such as error conditions, safety warnings, or confirmation steps. It is not complete enough for an AI agent to use safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only adds 'Backup job ID' for the id parameter. While it clarifies the parameter's purpose, it does not provide format or context beyond the schema's type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a scheduled backup job' using a specific verb and resource. Among siblings like create_backup_job and update_backup_job, the purpose is directly inferable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_backup_job) or prerequisites such as ensuring the job exists or is not running.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, required permissions, or side effects. It only implies a read operation through the word 'List', but adds no explicit transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two lines) and front-loads the purpose, but it omits important context. It is concise but fails to fully earn its place by not including usage or behavioral details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameter's meaning, usage context, or how this tool differs from sibling list tools. Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden but falls short.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'node'. The description adds 'The node name,' which provides basic meaning but lacks clarity on what constitutes a node (e.g., cluster node vs Ceph monitor node). It partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List Ceph monitors,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_ceph_osds and list_ceph_pools by specifying 'monitors'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other Ceph list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects (e.g., overwriting or merging existing options), required permissions, or whether the VM must be running. It only lists parameters without behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately verbose, listing all parameters in a structured 'Args:' format. It is functional but not extremely concise; some parameter descriptions could be shortened without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention return values or whether the operation is synchronous. It lacks context on common usage patterns, error conditions, or interaction with VM state. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, it falls short.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of integer parameters (e.g., '1 = enable, 0 = disable') and the 'delete' parameter. However, it does not explain valid values for 'policy_in' and 'policy_out' (e.g., ACCEPT, DROP), leaving a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sets firewall options for a QEMU VM. The verb 'set' is specific and distinguishes it from related tools like 'get_vm_firewall_options' (read) and 'create_vm_firewall_rule' (add rule).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when to use 'set' versus 'get' or 'create' firewall rules, nor does it provide context on prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description lacks behavioral details such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the VM is already running, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but poorly structured as a docstring. It presents arguments in a flat list without a proper format. Could be more concise while being better organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no return value description (despite having an output schema), the description fails to explain success/failure behavior, timeout implications, or error conditions. Incomplete for a VM management tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter documentation adds value by defining 'node', 'vmid', and 'timeout'. However, the explanations are minimal and lack details like expected formats or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Start a VM,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'stop_vm', 'shutdown_vm', and 'reboot_vm' in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like 'use for stopped VMs only' or exclude already running VMs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description lacks details on side effects, immediate impact, permissions, or error handling. It only hints at deletion via the 'delete' parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, but the parameter list consumes space that could be integrated into the schema. Overall efficient but not minimalist.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
All 8 parameters are described, but there is no mention of output schema, return values, or behavioral context. For a configuration tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds useful parameter explanations (e.g., 'Keyboard layout (e.g. en-us, de)') beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage. This helps agents understand each field's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update datacenter/cluster-wide options' clearly states the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'set_cluster_firewall_options', leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_cluster_options or set_cluster_firewall_options. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states 'Create a new LXC container' and lists parameters, omitting details like required permissions, side effects (e.g., container start behavior), or potential failures.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a structured parameter list. While lengthy due to the number of parameters (23), it is organized and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it reasonably concise for a complex tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count, lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (not described), the description is incomplete. It fails to mention return values, error conditions, or behavioral context like privilege requirements, leaving significant gaps for a creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema has no parameter descriptions. The description adds some value by providing examples for parameters like ostemplate, rootfs, net0, etc. However, many entries simply repeat the parameter name (e.g., 'node: The node name'), adding minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Create a new LXC container,' which is a specific verb and resource. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'create_vm' (for VMs) and 'clone_container' (cloning), establishing a distinct purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., clone_container or create_vm) or any prerequisites. It only lists parameters, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It omits side effects, required container state (e.g., running/stopped), locking behavior, or any constraints on snapshot creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single purpose sentence followed by a parameter list. Every element is front-loaded and essential, with no wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., snapshot ID, status, or success message). It also lacks context on preconditions (e.g., container existence, permissions) or post-conditions, leaving the agent without critical information for decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description merely repeats parameter titles (node name, container ID, snapshot name, snapshot description). It adds no additional meaning, constraints, format requirements, or examples beyond what the parameter names imply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a snapshot of a container', specifying the exact action and resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'create_vm_snapshot' and 'delete_container_snapshot' through resource and operation specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rollback, delete, or VM snapshots). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond parameter descriptions. It omits details on idempotency, validation behavior, success/failure outcomes, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear purpose line followed by an 'Args' block. It avoids unnecessary exposition but could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., parameter types) and front-loading critical behavioral notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all 11 parameters adequately, but lacks contextual details such as prerequisites (group must exist), rule application timing, or conflict resolution with existing rules. Given the complexity, this is a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by explaining each parameter. It provides valid values for 'action' (ACCEPT, DROP, REJECT) and 'enable' (1/0), which are not in the schema as enums. However, other parameters like 'proto', 'sport', 'dport' lack detailed format guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Add a rule to a firewall security group' which is a specific verb and resource. The name itself differentiates from sibling tools that create firewall rules for other scopes (cluster, container, VM), but no explicit differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_cluster_firewall_rule or create_vm_firewall_rule. No prerequisites (e.g., group must exist) or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'download' implying a read operation, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or constraints. Minimal transparency beyond the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short and directly to the point, but the 'Args:' section is somewhat unstructured. Efficient use of words with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing information about return value or output, despite existence of output schema. No mention of whether the file is saved locally or if a confirmation is given. Incomplete for a download operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It provides basic explanations for node, storage, and template (e.g., 'The node name'), adding modest meaning. Could be improved with format hints or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Download) and resource (appliance template) with target (local storage). It distinguishes from sibling tools like download_file_restore and download_url_to_storage, which handle different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like download_file_restore. No when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, required permissions, error conditions). For a tool with no annotations, description carries full burden but adds minimal info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and object. No redundancy. However, it is extremely terse and could benefit from slight expansion without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and existing output schema, description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context about 'configured' meaning and when to use over sibling list tools, leaving some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in input schema, so coverage is 100%. Baseline of 4 applies as description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'List nodes configured in the cluster' with specific verb and resource. It hints at a subset of nodes, distinguishing it from siblings like list_nodes, but 'configured' could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., list_nodes, get_cluster_resources). Does not specify what 'configured' means or when to prefer this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, idempotency, or authentication requirements. The description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but includes the purpose and parameter meaning. It is concise but lacks additional useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a simple getter, it is adequate but minimal. Could include more details such as typical usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the pos parameter ('Rule position number') beyond the schema's type-only info. However, with 0% schema coverage, it partially compensates but could be more detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets a specific cluster firewall rule, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_cluster_firewall_rules and create_cluster_firewall_rule.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing rules) or any prerequisites. The description is silent on context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose what happens on error, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Minimal behavioral context is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one line for purpose and two lines for parameter descriptions. No wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention that the tool retrieves the current firewall options configuration or that it does not modify state. More context could be added without bloating the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds basic meaning to the two parameters ('node: The node name.' and 'vmid: The container ID.'), which is helpful since the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). However, the descriptions are minimal and lack details like expected format or validation constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'firewall options for an LXC container', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is distinct from siblings like get_vm_firewall_options and get_container_firewall_rule, but does not explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_container_firewall_rule, set_container_firewall_options). There are no hints about prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, required permissions). While it is likely a safe read operation, this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure such as a clear separation of purpose and arguments. It could benefit from more organized formatting.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of a get operation and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the bare minimum. It lacks context about when to use this tool versus list_groups and does not explain the result format or any error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'groupid' is described as 'Group ID', which adds minimal value beyond the parameter name. The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description fails to explain where to obtain the ID or its format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Get group details', which clearly indicates a retrieval operation. Among sibling tools like create_group, delete_group, update_group, and list_groups, it uniquely identifies its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_groups. There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description only states what the tool does without disclosing any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or the structure of the log data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, front-loading the purpose in one sentence. However, it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about the log format, default ordering, possible errors, or any prerequisites beyond node existence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning by explaining 'node' as the node name and 'limit' as max entries, which the schema only provides titles and a default. However, the explanations are minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'firewall log for a node', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_node_journal or get_node_syslog.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain the context or prerequisites for retrieving firewall logs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and passthrough context, missing details like read-only nature, permissions needed, or return format. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief and front-loaded with the purpose. It avoids unnecessary words but could be slightly more structured without adding bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It omits context like typical use cases for passthrough and that it is a read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter 'node' is described only as 'The node name,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not provide constraints, examples, or format guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List PCI hardware devices on a node' with the specific context of passthrough, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_node_hardware_usb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_node_hardware_usb or get_node_capabilities_qemu. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or potential side effects. The tool name implies a read operation but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one purpose sentence plus one line per parameter. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (shown in context), the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks any mention of the read-only nature or typical use cases. Adequate for a simple getter but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds basic parameter descriptions: 'node: The node name' and 'iface: Interface name (e.g. 'vmbr0', 'eth0').' The iface example provides some guidance beyond the schema, though both parameters remain minimally documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get details for a specific network interface,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_node_network' (which lists all interfaces) and create/delete operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_node_network' for listing all interfaces. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. While the name implies reading, the lack of explicit safety disclosure is a gap for agents assessing risk.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short with no fluff; it gets straight to the point. However, it could benefit from a clearer structure (e.g., separating the main purpose from parameter descriptions).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description covers the basic purpose. However, for a retrieval tool, it lacks details like what 'usage status' includes (e.g., units, formatting) and does not explain the parameters beyond minimal labels.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema: it labels parameters as 'node name' and 'storage ID', but provides no additional semantics, constraints, examples, or guidance on valid values. With 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves usage status of a storage pool on a node, including total, used, and available. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_storage_config or get_node_disks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_storage_config or get_node_storage_scan. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any contextual hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it retrieves details and privileges, but omits whether permissions are needed, if it's read-only, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear one-line purpose followed by an arguments section. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema. The description covers the basic purpose but lacks context on return types, error conditions, or when to use. Given the tool's low complexity, it is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides 'roleid: Role ID,' which is minimal and adds little beyond the parameter name. No format, source, or constraints are explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get role details and its privileges,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_roles (which lists roles) and update_role (which modifies), so purpose is well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_roles or other get_* tools. No context on prerequisites, required state, or exclusions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It fails to mention that the output is likely paginated (via limit/start), potential size constraints, or that the task must exist. Only the parameter list hints at pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of one sentence and a parameter list. However, the parameter list is in a docstring format that is not front-loaded, and the overall structure could be more streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (context signal), the return format is likely defined. But the description lacks context on pagination behavior, error handling, or any limitations, making it minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description provides the only semantics. It adds brief but clear explanations for each parameter (node, upid, limit, start), which is helpful for an agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get log output of a specific task' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_task_status', which also operates on tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_task_status'). The description does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details' and lists arguments, but does not indicate that this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using two sentences and an argument list. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and avoids fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters and an output schema (though not described), the description lacks details about what 'details' are returned (e.g., properties, status). It also fails to connect to sibling tools. The description is too minimal to fully enable an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds some meaning by naming the parameters ('node: The node name', 'name: ZFS pool name'). However, it does not provide constraints, formats, or examples, which would be helpful for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get details of a ZFS pool', which is a specific verb (get) and resource (ZFS pool details). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_zfs_pools' which lists all pools, and 'create_zfs_pool' which creates a pool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_zfs_pools' for browsing pools. It does not mention prerequisites or context for using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the function, without mentioning read-only nature, authentication needs, or side effects. Minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It does not discuss return values or usage context, but given the low complexity, it's passable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds 'The node name.' for the parameter, which is basic and does not provide format, constraints, or examples. Little additional value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (CephFS filesystems). Among sibling tools like list_ceph_osds and list_ceph_pools, it is distinct and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools or any prerequisites. It simply describes what it does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose side effects, permissions, or any behavioral traits beyond the obvious 'list' operation. With no annotations, more detail is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with a clear structure including an Args section. However, it could include slightly more context without becoming verbose, but it does not waste words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate for understanding the basic purpose. However, it lacks context about what OSDs are, prerequisites, or potential errors, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description merely repeats the parameter name ('node: The node name') without adding format, constraints, or additional context, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List Ceph OSDs on a node,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. Among sibling tools like list_ceph_fs and list_ceph_managers, it effectively distinguishes the function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_ceph_pools or other list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('List') without revealing whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. For a list operation, safety may be implied, but the description fails to explicitly convey behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. While it is appropriately sized, it could be enhanced with minor details without becoming verbose. The structure is functional but minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (not shown) which may convey return values, so the description need not explain them. However, it lacks context about what 'directory-based storage mounts' are, how the node is specified, or any prerequisites. Given the simple input, it is minimally complete but could be more helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema parameter 'node' has 0% description coverage. The description adds only 'The node name', which is redundant with the schema's title. No values, format, or constraints are explained. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but barely does.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool lists directory-based storage mounts on a node, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_storage (which lists all storage) and list_node_storage by specifying 'directory-based', making its purpose precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, nor any reference to sibling tools like list_storage which may be more appropriate for general storage listing. The agent is left to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavior. It only states 'List directory mappings', implying a read operation but does not clarify side effects, return format, or any constraints. This is insufficient for transparent behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short—only two words—and to the point. It avoids redundancy, but could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. Still, it earns a 4 for being succinct and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what 'directory mappings' represent or provide any context about the expected output. A bit more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, but no additional explanation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and specific resource 'directory mappings', providing a clear purpose. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like list_pci_mappings or list_usb_mappings, which are similarly named and could be confused.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_directory_storage or other list_* mapping tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or preferred use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List recent tasks' and parameter meanings. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, safe, or what defines 'recent' (time frame). It does not address pagination behavior beyond limit/start offsets. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clear bullet-list format for parameters. No redundant sentences. However, the parameter descriptions could be more structured (e.g., using a table), but it is not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers all parameters adequately. However, it lacks context about what 'recent' means, the nature of tasks (e.g., from node task log), and how the time range is determined. It is minimally complete but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter (e.g., 'node: The node name', 'limit: Max tasks to return', 'typefilter: Filter by task type (e.g. qmstart)' ). It adds value beyond schema types and defaults, though it could provide allowed values or constraints for filters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List recent tasks on a node' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (tasks on a node). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_cluster_tasks (cluster-level) and get_task_log (specific task details) by focusing on node-level listing, but does not explicitly compare them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_cluster_tasks or get_task_log). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The parameter descriptions hint at usage but lack explicit when/when-not advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only states it lists entries with an optional filter, omitting details like authentication needs, scope, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, though the args block is slightly verbose for a single parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal; it lacks details about output structure or possible edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'userid' as a filter and that empty returns all users, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists TFA entries, but it does not differentiate from other list_* sibling tools like list_users or list_vms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description only mentions the filter parameter without any context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description should disclose effects. It mentions 'online' for live migration and 'restart' for non-live, but does not state that the container may become unavailable during migration, nor does it describe rollback or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one short sentence plus a parameter list. The list format is clear and scannable, though the overall structure is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., container must exist, target node must be in cluster), potential side effects, or usage scenarios. For a migration operation, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for 'online' (Live migration) and 'restart' (Restart container after migration), but for 'node', 'vmid', 'target' it only restates the name. 'target_storage' is explained as 'Target storage mapping.' Adds some meaning but not deep.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Migrate a container to another node,' which specifies the verb (migrate) and resource (container). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'migrate_vm' (for VMs) and 'bulk_migrate_guests' (bulk operation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., live vs non-live migration, when to use bulk migration). The description lists parameters but does not explain prerequisites or context for choosing migration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a state-altering operation but does not disclose behavioral traits like destructiveness, irreversibility, or the need to stop the container. Without annotations, the description fails to adequately inform the agent of the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with a single sentence and a clean list of arguments. It is not verbose, but the structure is adequate for a simple tool. Slightly more context could be added without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's potentially destructive nature (rollback), the description is incomplete. It fails to mention prerequisites, effects on current state, or conditions like container status. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for this lack of context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides minimal explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'The node name.'), adding some meaning beyond the schema titles. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the explanations are trivial and lack constraints or allowed values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Rollback') and the resource ('container to a previous snapshot'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'rollback_vm_snapshot' (for VMs) and other snapshot operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a container should be stopped or prerequisites like the existence of the snapshot. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only says 'Update a scheduled backup job' without disclosing side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single line plus a parameter list, concise and front-loaded. The list is useful but somewhat repetitive of the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does not provide enough context. It lacks explanations for complex fields like 'schedule', 'mode', 'compress', and 'delete'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameters with labels like 'Backup job ID' and 'Schedule in systemd calendar format', adding some meaning beyond the schema titles. However, explanation is minimal and does not fully compensate for 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Update a scheduled backup job' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_backup_job' and 'delete_backup_job'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid, or how it relates to other backup job tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the update requires a restart, if changes are immediate, or any side effects. The description only lists parameters without behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description starts with a clear purpose sentence, then lists parameters in a compact format. It is not overly verbose, though the parameter list is long. The structure is functional but could be more streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (15 parameters, update operation) and presence of an output schema, the description lacks context about post-update behavior, such as whether the container restarts, if any parameters are interdependent, or what the response contains. It is incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add value. It provides brief comments for each parameter (e.g., 'Memory in MB', 'CPU cores'), which adds some context beyond parameter names but is minimal. Many comments are trivial or restate the name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update the configuration of an existing container.' which clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (container configuration), distinct from sibling tools like create_container or clone_container.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when the container must be stopped or if some parameters require the container to be offline. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It only states 'Update' but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, or deletion behavior beyond the 'delete' parameter. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is front-loaded with purpose, followed by a concise parameter list. Each line is short. Minor waste: 'Args:' header could be omitted, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema being present, the description lacks crucial context such as prerequisite permissions, error conditions, or relationship with HA group status. Incomplete for safe and effective tool usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description compensates partially. The parameter list adds brief explanations (e.g., '-1 = don't change' for max_relocate), but lacks depth like valid values for 'state' or format for 'delete'. Adequate but not thorough.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an HA resource configuration' with specific verb and resource. It distinctly separates from sibling tools like create_ha_resource, delete_ha_resource, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_ha_group or relocate_ha_resource. The description only lists parameters without any when/when-not context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update an existing user' and lists parameters, but does not mention mutation effects, atomicity, partial vs full replacement, or side effects beyond the 'append' hint. Insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a front-loaded purpose sentence and a compact parameter list. However, the flat list could be better structured (e.g., grouping or defaults), earning a 4 rather than a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers parameter meanings adequately but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error conditions). It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds format constraints (e.g., 'userid: User ID (format: user@realm)'), special values for 'expire', and behavior for 'append'. Some descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Email address'), but overall adds significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Update an existing user', clearly indicating the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_user' or 'delete_user' beyond the verb, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., user must exist), or context. Among many sibling update tools, this omission reduces usability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the basic operation without mentioning error handling, file size limits, or whether the operation is safe (read-only). The description does not add value beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the action, listing parameters in a clear format. No wasted words, but it could be more structured (e.g., separating behavior from args).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, straightforward read operation) and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits common expectations like error scenarios, synchronous vs async nature, and guest agent requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but only provides minimal restatements: 'node: The node name.', 'vmid: The VM ID.', 'file: Absolute file path inside the guest.' Only the 'file' parameter gets a slight hint (absolute path), while others lack format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the verb 'Read', resource 'file inside VM', and method 'guest agent', clearly defining its purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vm_agent_file_write and vm_agent_exec.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., guest agent must be running), and no comparison with similar tools. Users must infer context from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so full burden falls on description. Description only says 'write content' without specifying whether it creates/overwrites/appends, permissions, or side effects. Insufficient for a file write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with main purpose front-loaded. Could be improved by adding prerequisites or examples, but no unnecessary sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
4 required parameters, no annotations, output schema exists but description lacks info on error handling, post-conditions, or behavior when file exists. Incomplete for a file write tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds brief explanations: 'Absolute file path inside the guest' and 'File content to write.' This provides some meaning beyond the schema's titles, though minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action 'Write content to a file inside a VM via the guest agent,' specifying the verb, resource, and method. Distinguishes from sibling tools like vm_agent_file_read and vm_agent_exec.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., guest agent must be running) or context where this is preferred over vm_agent_exec or other file operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or what happens if the guest agent is not active. Only parameter listings are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first sentence states purpose, second lists arguments. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return values are not needed. The description covers all info_type options. However, it misses prerequisites like guest agent requirement and error conditions. Adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides basic explanations for node and vmid, and lists all possible values for info_type. This adds value but node and vmid descriptions are minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get various system information from a VM via the guest agent', specifying the resource and verb. It lists specific info types, distinguishing it from other get tools that may not use the guest agent. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_vm_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., guest agent must be running) or when not to use it. The info_type list gives some context but no explicit usage rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the operation but omits preconditions (e.g., guest agent must be running), side effects, permission requirements, or the fact that the password might be encrypted. The crypted parameter is mentioned but its implications are not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a short main sentence followed by an Args list. The structure is clear, but the Args list is somewhat redundant given the schema. It could be more streamlined without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and the tool's complexity (5 parameters, mutation, no output schema in view), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, prerequisites, and result information, which are critical for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a one-line explanation for each parameter (e.g., 'The username'), adding basic semantics beyond the schema titles. However, it lacks constraints, format details, or examples, so it only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set a user password'), the target ('inside a VM'), and the method ('via the guest agent'). It is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes this tool from other VM agent tools like vm_agent_exec or vm_agent_file_read.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as change_password or other vm_agent commands. There are no context cues or exclusion criteria to help an agent decide between similar operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions sending a magic packet but does not describe the network requirements (e.g., UDP broadcast, port 9, need for node to be in powered-off but connected state). The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence and a parameter list. It front-loads the action. However, it is perhaps too brief, missing opportunities to add value without becoming verbose. It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses a point for not balancing brevity with completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (so return values are handled), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context about the underlying protocol, network requirements, and when it succeeds or fails. An agent might need additional context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It states 'node: The node name,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type and title. It does not specify whether node refers to a hostname, IP address, or specific identifier, nor does it clarify format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Send a Wake-on-LAN magic packet to a node.' It uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('magic packet to a node'), making the purpose immediately clear. This is distinct from sibling tools like start_vm or start_container, which directly power on devices; WOL is a network-based wake mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include start_vm and start_container for powering on virtual machines or containers, but the description does not explain that WOL is specifically for waking physical nodes that support Wake-on-LAN, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., node must be on same network segment).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'Create' and lists parameters, but fails to mention side effects, permissions required, idempotency, or any constraints. The output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving the agent uninformed about call results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single-line purpose followed by a bullet-style parameter list. Every sentence serves purpose, and the core action is front-loaded. No redundant or filler content exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details, usage context, and constraints. While the output schema covers return values, the description does not address error states or prerequisites, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with minimal explanations (e.g., 'Zone ID', 'Zone type'), adding some value beyond the schema by enumerating allowed types for 'type'. However, most descriptions are tautological or vague, providing little semantic enrichment.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Create an SDN zone,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_sdn_zone and list_sdn_zones, leaving no ambiguity about the action performed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no scenarios for appropriate use. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, making it difficult for an agent to decide between this and related tools like create_sdn_subnet or create_sdn_vnet.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral traits. It only states the action but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the resource is destroyed or just unmanaged), required permissions, or conditions. Critical behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the action. However, it could be slightly more comprehensive without losing conciseness. Overall, it is well-structured for its length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple delete operation, especially since an output schema exists. However, it lacks important context about what happens to the underlying resource (e.g., does it delete the VM/container?), which is relevant given sibling tools like delete_container and delete_vm.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the sid parameter by specifying its format as 'type:vmid', which is not present in the schema. However, this is minimal; an example or list of possible types would improve it. Still, it compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Remove a resource from HA management.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_ha_resource, update_ha_resource, migrate_ha_resource, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description is purely declarative without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits like overwrite policy, size limits, authentication, or network requirements. Leaves important unknowns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is somewhat long due to parameter list, but structured clearly with bullet points. Main purpose is front-loaded. Efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered. But for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient to fully understand usage context, such as what happens with existing files or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description compensates by listing all 7 parameters with brief meanings. However, descriptions are minimal and lack details like format, validation, or examples. Adequate but not rich.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (download), source (URL), destination (storage), and example content types (ISO, template). Distinguishes from sibling tools like upload_to_storage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like download_appliance_template or upload_to_storage. Missing when-not or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or read-only nature. The tool name implies reading, but the description lacks explicit behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the main action, and uses efficient bullet points for arguments. Every sentence contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, the description lacks context about when to dump versus get, and no notes on prerequisites (e.g., VM must have cloud-init). Adequate but with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for all parameters: node is node name, vmid is VM ID, and type specifies config type with valid values 'user', 'network', or 'meta', which are absent from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool dumps Cloud-Init generated config files (user-data, network-data, meta-data). The verb 'dump' is specific, and the resource is precisely defined. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'get_vm_cloudinit', which might cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_vm_cloudinit'. The description only lists arguments without contextual usage instructions or preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action 'Get' which implies a read operation. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, side effects, rate limits, or data sensitivity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two lines, front-loading the purpose. No redundant information; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema exists, the description is adequate. It explains the parameter but could be slightly more complete by noting that the realm must exist or what the return value represents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage but the description provides helpful examples for the 'realm' parameter (e.g., 'pam', 'pve', 'my-ldap'), adding meaning beyond the schema's title and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get authentication domain configuration' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_auth_domains' which returns all domains, relying on the tool name to convey the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_auth_domains' or 'sync_auth_domain'. There is no mention of prerequisites, failure cases, or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not mention authorization requirements, error conditions (e.g., if backup job ID is invalid), rate limits, or side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces some burden, but the description itself provides minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter is explained in a clear docstring format. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple retrieval with one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could mention that the output is a list of volumes or clarify that it's read-only. Still, the output schema likely covers return details, so it's not incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for the sole parameter 'id' by stating 'Backup job ID.' This clarifies the purpose beyond the schema's minimal 'Id' title and type string. For a single parameter, this is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get volumes included in a backup job.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_backup_job (which likely returns job details) and list_backup_jobs (lists jobs). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar get tools, but the name helps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios are mentioned. The description is purely declarative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers minimal behavioral insight beyond stating it retrieves configuration. It does not disclose permissions, read-only nature, or what the configuration entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with the primary action stated upfront and parameters listed clearly. No wasted words, though it could be expanded slightly for context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks context to distinguish from similar 'get' tools and provides no error or usage details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds brief explanations for each parameter ('node: The node name', 'vmid: The container ID'), which provides some meaning beyond the schema. However, with 0% schema coverage, more detail would be beneficial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get') and resource ('configuration of a container'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_container_status or get_container_pending.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, preconditions, or exclusion of other tools like get_container_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'List rules'—no mention of read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, or format of output. The behavior is minimally implied but not explicitly disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with one sentence and parameter details. No wasted words, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). Efficient for a single-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, but the description does not set context about the output or usage in relation to other firewall tools. It is adequate for a simple list operation but misses opportunities to fully inform the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes 'group: Security group name.', adding meaning to the parameter beyond the schema (which only has type string). However, it does not explain what constitutes a security group name or how to obtain it. Given 0% schema coverage, this provides basic but incomplete context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List rules in a firewall security group' clearly states the action (list) and resource (rules in a firewall security group). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_firewall_groups (lists groups) and get_firewall_refs (references).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparison to sibling tools like get_cluster_firewall_rule, get_container_firewall_rule, etc.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise with no redundant words. However, it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are covered externally. But the description lacks context about usage flow and doesn't clarify that it's a read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'id: Metric server ID.', which explains the parameter but adds minimal detail beyond the schema title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get metric server configuration', using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling 'list_metric_servers' by implying a single server retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_metric_servers. No mention of prerequisites or typical usage flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior (startcursor is listed but not explained). The 'Read' verb implies non-destructive, but more detail is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a clear docstring format. While concise, it could be more structured with separate sections for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the description lacks guidance on usage patterns, limitations, or integration with other tools. Given the 5 parameters and no behavioral context, it is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to all 5 parameters beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the node, lastentries, since, until, and startcursor fields. However, the explanations are minimal and lack details such as date/time format or cursor syntax.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'systemd journal entries from a node'. This unambiguously defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_syslog.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_node_syslog, get_node_firewall_log). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like safety, permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with two sentences and clear structure, including an 'Args' section. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, but it lacks context about the node parameter (e.g., available nodes, format). It is adequate for a simple tool but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'node: The node name', which adds minimal value beyond the schema property name. It does not provide format, constraints, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the current time and timezone of a node', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_node_status or get_node_version by focusing solely on time/timezone retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's a simple getter, the description lacks explicit context for selection among many get_node_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It identifies the operation as a read (non-destructive), but does not disclose behavior for invalid zone IDs, error handling, or potential side effects. The simple getter context makes some omissions acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, with no superfluous information. It efficiently conveys the purpose and parameter. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure or examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, read operation, presence of output schema), the description is largely sufficient. It covers the essential what and the parameter. Additional details about the return value are not required due to the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds 'Args: zone: Zone ID', providing basic semantics. However, it lacks details on format or allowed values, and there is only one parameter. This is adequate but minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get SDN zone configuration' indicating a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sdn_zones by implying retrieval of a single zone's config, but does not explicitly differentiate from other getters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_sdn_zones or other getters. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description discloses no behavioral traits (e.g., read vs write, authentication needs, output format). The description fails to add any transparency beyond the bare action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous content. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with no parameters and an output schema available, the description is mostly adequate. It could benefit from stating the scope (e.g., 'all ACME accounts') but is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. The description offers no additional parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List ACME (Let's Encrypt) accounts' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (ACME accounts). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_acme_account' (retrieve one) and 'register_acme_account' (create).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_acme_account' or 'list_acme_plugins'. The user must infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, pagination, rate limits, or performance implications. For a simple list operation, the minimal information may suffice, but the lack of transparency is noticeable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two sentences plus parameter list), front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it misses context like required permissions or that the container must exist. For a simple list tool, it is minimally adequate but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description clearly explains the parameters: 'node: The node name. vmid: The container ID.' This adds meaning beyond the parameter names and types, compensating for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List firewall rules for an LXC container', which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_vm_firewall_rules or list_cluster_firewall_rules by mentioning 'LXC container', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_node_firewall_rules, list_vm_firewall_rules). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination, or permissions. Only states it lists entries.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (two lines). It front-loads the purpose and includes the parameter. Could be slightly more structured but no wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, has output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but does not mention output schema or list expected return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning by explaining the 'name' parameter as 'IP set name', which is not present in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so only minimal clarification is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List entries in a firewall IP set' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_firewall_ipsets' which lists sets, not entries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_firewall_ipsets, add_firewall_ipset_entry). Usage is only implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'list' but does not mention read-only nature, required permissions, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with two sentences. It is clear without extraneous information, though it could be slightly more detailed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It lacks explanation of return format or prerequisites but is generally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds minimal value by stating 'node: The node name.' This clarifies the parameter but does not provide format or constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists LVM thin pools on a node, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_lvm_volumes' which lists volumes, not thin pools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_lvm_volumes' or other list tools. It does not specify prerequisites or contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only states 'list all configured notification endpoints', giving no behavioral details such as being read-only, idempotent, or any side effects. The agent must infer it is a safe read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise and front-loaded with the action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no parameters and an output schema (present but not shown). The description is minimal; while it covers the basic purpose, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral disclosure. An agent may need more context to decide when to call it versus sibling list tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed since schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it lists all configured notification endpoints and provides examples (sendmail, gotify, smtp, webhook). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_notification_matchers or list_notification_targets, so not a full 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings for matchers and targets, an agent needs context on which list to choose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as permissions required, side effects, or performance implications. It only states the action, assuming a read-only operation but not confirming it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences with a clear function signature. The Args section is redundant with the schema but not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. However, it lacks context about when to use it and behavioral traits, leaving room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the two parameters beyond the schema by stating 'node: The node name' and 'vmid: The VM ID'. However, this is minimal and does not explain formats or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'snapshots of a VM', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_container_snapshots' and 'get_vm_snapshot_config' by specifying 'VM'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_vm_snapshot_config' for a specific snapshot or 'create_vm_snapshot' for creating. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as potential downtime, state changes, or network impact. The parameter listing does not cover side effects or operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence followed by a clean parameter list. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (context signal), the description does not mention the return value or behavior (e.g., task ID). For a potentially disruptive operation like migration, prerequisites and outcomes are omitted, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds brief explanations for all 6 parameters (e.g., 'online: Live migration (True) or offline (False)'). However, explanations lack detail (e.g., targetstorage format) and do not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Migrate a VM to another node in the cluster.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like migrate_container and migrate_ha_resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool (e.g., prerequisites, when to choose live vs offline migration). It does not mention alternatives or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameter list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It hints at ordering and renewing but omits details like whether it contacts external servers, what happens if a certificate is already valid, or if the operation is destructive. The force parameter is minimally explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two lines and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with purpose and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of certificate ordering (potential async tasks, error conditions, output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not mention return values, waiting times, or failure modes. An output schema exists but its content is not described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds brief explanations for both parameters beyond the schema ('The node name', 'Force renewal even if not due'), but these are minimal. Schema coverage is 0%, so more detail would be beneficial, especially on valid node formats or force semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Order/renew'), resource ('ACME certificate'), and scope ('for a node'). This distinguishes it from sibling ACME tools like register_acme_account or list_acme_accounts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., existing ACME account), or conditions under which renewal is appropriate. The description only lists parameters without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'stop' without indicating whether it performs a graceful shutdown or forced halt, or any side effects like stopping running tasks. This lack of detail reduces transparency for safe tool invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently explains the parameters in a structured format (Args:). Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a bulk stop operation and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention important context like whether the operation is synchronous, if it waits for guests to stop, or how it handles errors. Output schema exists but does not substitute for behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the node parameter as 'The node name' and vms as 'Comma-separated list of VMIDs to stop (empty = all)'. While helpful, it could be more precise (e.g., specifying ID format for vms or node naming requirements). It adds meaning beyond the schema but not fully detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool stops all VMs and containers on a node, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bulk_shutdown_guests by specifying node-level operation. However, it does not explicitly clarify that 'VMs and containers' refers to QEMU VMs and LXC containers, which is inferable from context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for stopping all guests on a node, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_shutdown_guests or shutdown_vm. No explicit context or exclusions are given, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only says 'Add,' which implies modification but does not disclose idempotency, error behavior, or whether adding a duplicate entry is allowed. Does not state if the IP set must exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, front-loading the action. The Args list is structured and each parameter is described in a single line. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists, the description omits success indicators, error handling, and preconditions (e.g., IP set existence). For a mutation tool in a complex context with many firewall siblings, it lacks completeness for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds brief parameter explanations (e.g., 'IP address or CIDR' for cidr, 'Exclude this entry (nomatch)' for nomatch). However, it lacks format constraints (e.g., IPv4/IPv6) and does not elaborate beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Add an IP/CIDR to an IP set,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like delete_firewall_ipset_entry and list_firewall_ipset_entries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_firewall_ipset, delete_firewall_ipset_entry). No prerequisites mentioned, such as the IP set must exist before adding entries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. However, it only states 'Create a new Ceph pool' and lists parameters without describing side effects, destructive nature, authentication needs, or return behavior. Critical gaps remain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear first sentence and a well-structured parameter list. It is efficient but could benefit from separating the core description from parameter details more distinctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema that is not described, the description should cover more. It omits return values, error conditions, and constraints (e.g., node validity). The parameter list helps but is insufficient for full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by listing parameters with default values and brief explanations (e.g., 'size: Number of replicas (default 3)', 'application: Pool application (rbd, cephfs, rgw)'). This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new Ceph pool', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_ceph_osd or list_ceph_pools by specifying the Ceph pool context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites are mentioned, and there is no exclusion criteria. It simply performs the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Create' with no mention of side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error scenarios. It lacks behavioral context beyond creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and without extraneous text. It efficiently lists parameters with minimal but useful explanations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., duplicate alias), output format (though output schema is present), or any preconditions. Minimal but adequate for a straightforward create operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It provides brief descriptions for each parameter and an example for cidr. However, no constraints (length, format) are given for name or comment, only cidr example.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a firewall alias and explains what an alias is (named IP address or CIDR). It distinguishes from siblings like create_firewall_ipset and add_firewall_ipset_entry.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context for when it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits but merely lists parameters. It lacks details on side effects (e.g., if interface exists, persistence, node state requirements), leaving the agent uninformed about critical behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by a clear 'Args' list. Each parameter gets one line, making it easy to scan. While not using bullet points, it remains concise and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits prerequisites (e.g., node must exist, interface naming rules), effect on existing interfaces, and confirmation of creation. The agent lacks full context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for all 9 parameters, including valid values for 'type', format hints for 'address', and defaults. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates a network interface on a node, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_node_network_interface, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions or prerequisites. There is no 'when not to use' or comparison with other network-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a write operation ('Create') but does not disclose potential data loss, permission requirements, or behavior if the pool or devices already exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single-line purpose followed by a structured list of parameters. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks edge case handling, such as number of devices required for specific raid levels, validation rules, or what happens on failure. It does not mention the output despite an output schema being present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section explains each parameter, including examples for devices and listing allowed values for raidlevel. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new ZFS pool' with specific verb and resource. It lists parameters that are unique to ZFS (e.g., raidlevel options like raidz, draid), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_lvm or create_directory_storage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when to choose ZFS over other storage types, or scenarios to avoid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' implying destruction, but fails to disclose permanence, side effects, or permission requirements. Minimal transparency for a potentially destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. However, it sacrifices important behavioral and usage information that would improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is destructive, has no annotations, and has an output schema that is not referenced, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, confirm success, or provide context about rule positions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'pos' parameter. The description adds 'Rule position to delete', providing basic semantics, but lacks details on range, indexing, or how to obtain the value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a cluster-level firewall rule'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, update, get, and list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for removing a rule but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other cluster firewall rule tools, nor any prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states 'Delete an API token' without disclosing side effects like session invalidation, permission requirements, or whether deletion is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: two sentences plus parameter list. Front-loaded with action. No superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation, description is functional. Does not mention return behavior (e.g., success confirmation) or any restrictions (e.g., cannot delete own token). Could be more complete, but adequate given the action's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds brief explanations: 'userid: User ID (format: 'user@realm')' and 'tokenid: Token ID.' This provides some meaning beyond the schema, but could be more detailed about where to obtain tokenid.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete an API token,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_user_token and list_user_tokens.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites or context such as requiring admin permissions or not being able to delete the current user's token.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action and parameter; no mention of side effects, authentication, rate limits, or return format. Behavioral traits are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with two lines. Information is front-loaded and no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple get tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context such as read-only nature or authentication requirements, leaving gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds 'Plugin ID' for the 'id' parameter, which clarifies its role. However, schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate, but it only adds minimal context beyond the type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get ACME plugin configuration', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_acme_account and get_acme_tos by targeting the plugin specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool or when to avoid it. No discussion of alternatives, prerequisites, or context. The description is purely functional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning safety (e.g., read-only), authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The tool is likely a read operation, but this is not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no unnecessary words, and directly addresses the tool's function. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context about what 'Ceph status' entails (e.g., health, cluster state) and does not reference any prerequisites or related resources. It is minimally adequate for a simple parameter but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the additional description 'node: The node name' adds basic meaning beyond the type string. However, it does not specify the format (e.g., hostname or ID) or provide constraints, leaving room for ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get Ceph status from a specific node's perspective', specifying the verb 'Get', the resource 'Ceph status', and the scope 'from a specific node's perspective'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_ceph_status_cluster', which likely provides cluster-level status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_ceph_status_cluster' or other Ceph-related tools. The description does not include any contextual cues for selection, leaving the agent without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states it gets configuration, but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or any side effects. The minimal description fails to convey important context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words, but could be slightly expanded to include more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is minimal but adequate for a simple get operation. However, it does not explain the return value or how it differs from similar tools, leaving some context missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, with 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description adds no extra parameter information, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the corosync totem configuration,' which specifies the verb (Get) and the resource (corosync totem configuration). However, it does not differentiate from other get_* tools, such as get_cluster_config, which could be confusing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only implies usage for retrieving corosync totem configuration. No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other cluster configuration tools, is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states it gets version information. It does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, potential errors, or authorization needs), leaving the agent with insufficient safety context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, with no wasted words. However, its brevity leads to omissions in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the number of sibling tools (especially get_version and other get_node_* tools), the description lacks context about how this tool fits in. It does not explain the relationship to get_version or what 'version information' entails, though an output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds only the label 'node name,' which is minimally helpful. Baseline is 4, but the description does not provide format, examples, or constraints, so it adds limited value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies 'Get Proxmox VE version information for a specific node,' using a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_version' (global version) and other get_node_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage requires a node name but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_version for global info). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention error handling, auth requirements, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence plus parameter explanations. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the output schema exists (reducing need to describe return values), the description does not address edge cases like what happens if the user does not exist or the path is invalid. It is minimally complete for a simple read tool but lacks some context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds basic meaning for both parameters: userid defaults to current user, path defaults to root. This is adequate but not thorough; it does not explain expected input formats or constraints beyond defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'effective permissions for a user on a given path'. It precisely describes the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_acl or list_permissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_acl or other permission-related tools. No context about prerequisites or scenarios is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the function without disclosing side effects, authorization needs, or return characteristics. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, with the main action front-loaded. The parameter list is clear but slightly redundant with the schema. No wasted sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with an output schema, the description provides the core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, making it adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds basic parameter meanings ('The node name', 'The task UPID string'), but these are generic and add little beyond type knowledge. Insufficient compensation for low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'task status', specifying retrieval by UPID. It distinguishes from siblings like get_task_log and get_cluster_tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by UPID but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide context on prerequisites. It lacks direct guidance for selection among many get_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool lists files but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, required permissions, potential errors, or rate limits. The description implies a non-destructive listing but lacks explicit transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence stating purpose and a short Args list. It is front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and parameters. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., backup must exist) or return format, but the output schema likely provides that. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing each parameter (node, storage, volume, filepath) with a brief meaning. This provides basic semantic mapping beyond the schema, though it lacks details like format or allowed values. The default for filepath is noted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists files in a vzdump backup for single-file restore. It specifies the verb 'list', the resource 'files in a vzdump backup', and the context 'for single-file restore'. This distinguishes it from generic list tools like 'list_file_restore', though it could explicitly differentiate from siblings. Overall, clear and functional.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'list_file_restore' and 'download_file_restore' exist, but no comparison or context is given. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or confirm read-only nature. The name 'list' suggests safety, but the description does not explicitly state it is non-destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) and gets to the point. It could include more context without being verbose, but it is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists the returned fields (status, memory, CPU, disk info), partially covering output. With an output schema (unseen), the description need not explain return values in detail. It lacks filtering or pagination details, but for a basic list, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'node' is described as 'The node name.' This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema (which only has title and type). With 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more detail, but the parameter is straightforward.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all LXC containers on a node, specifying the returned information (status, memory, CPU, disk). This distinguishes it from similar list tools like list_vms (VMs) or list_container_snapshots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_vms or list_storage_content. The description only implies a node context but does not provide when-not-to-use or mention sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, leaving the description as the sole source of behavioral information. The single sentence does not disclose traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or return format, which is insufficient for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence with no fluff. It earns its place by directly stating the function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. However, lacking context about the meaning of 'realm sync jobs' or how they relate to other list operations slightly reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (automatically). Per guidelines, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (realm synchronization jobs). However, it does not differentiate from numerous sibling 'list_*' tools, lacking specificity about what constitutes a realm sync job.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many list tools available, explicit context or examples would help agents choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only lists possible actions without explaining side effects (e.g., restart stops then starts), required permissions, error states, or return behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a state-changing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficient: one sentence for purpose followed by a bullet list of parameters with examples. No redundant information, and key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (3 simple params) and existence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and usage guidance, making it incomplete for a thorough understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description lists parameters with example service names (e.g., 'pvedaemon') and specific action values. This adds some meaning beyond the schema's generic string types, though more details like node format or action enumeration would be helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it can start, stop, restart, or reload a system service on a node, specifying the exact actions and resource. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that manage other resources like VMs or containers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_node_services or when not to use it (e.g., if the service doesn't exist). There is no mention of prerequisites or transitions from other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions sending a command but does not disclose potential destructive actions, required permissions, or side effects. For a low-level tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief: a single-purpose sentence followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists (not shown), so return value details may not be needed. However, the description does not explain what happens after command execution (e.g., output behavior, error handling). For an advanced tool, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides one-line definitions for each parameter (node, vmid, command), which adds basic meaning beyond the schema titles. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more detail (e.g., valid command format, constraints) would improve clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Send') and the resource ('QEMU monitor command to a VM'), and notes it is advanced/low-level. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_vm_key or vm_agent_exec.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The term 'advanced/low-level' implies it's for expert use, but no specific conditions or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source. It only states the tool sets/unset a flag without disclosing side effects, authorization needs, or potential impacts on the Ceph cluster. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single-line purpose and an Args section. It front-loads key information without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter mutating tool, the description covers the basics but omits prerequisites, error conditions, and cluster impact. An output schema exists but is not described. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds crucial meaning. It provides examples for 'flag' and clarifies the boolean 'value' semantics. However, it does not specify case sensitivity or a definitive list of valid flags.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool sets a Ceph global flag and provides examples of flag names. It clearly identifies the action and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_ceph_flags.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by showing how to set or unset flags, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates mutation via 'update' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, idempotency, required permissions, or side effects beyond listing parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph with a clear list for parameters. It is mostly concise and front-loaded with the purpose, though the parameter list is verbose but necessary given low schema coverage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema shown, the description is incomplete. It lacks return value details, error handling, examples, and broader usage context for a complex update tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds brief context for each parameter (e.g., 'delete: Comma-separated list of settings to delete'), which adds some value, but does not explain formats, constraints, or relationships. Baseline 3 due to low coverage, but not fully compensating.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update an existing storage pool configuration,' which specifies the verb (update) and resource (storage pool). It implicitly distinguishes from create and delete siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for updating existing storage but does not provide explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits like whether shutdown is graceful, forced, or reversible. For a potentially destructive action, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, including an Args section. It avoids unnecessary detail, though slightly more structure could improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and presence of an output schema (not described), the description covers the main purpose and parameter but lacks detail on shutdown behavior, safety, or return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the docstring explains that 'vms' is a comma-separated list of VMIDs and default is empty (all). This adds clarity beyond the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (bulk shutdown), resource (guests), and scope (across cluster). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'shutdown_vm' (single VM) and 'stopall_node' (all on a node).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'shutdown_vm' or 'stopall_node'. No prerequisites or conditions for use are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or return behavior. The creation action is implied but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured as a clear list with parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the purpose statement. While slightly verbose due to 14 parameters, each line is concise and informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 14 parameters and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics well. However, it lacks behavioral context, return value information (though output schema exists), and comparison with sibling tools, making it moderately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'storage: Target storage ID', 'schedule: in systemd calendar format'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a scheduled backup job', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_backup_jobs and update_backup_job by focusing on creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_vzdump for one-time backups. No prerequisites or contexts are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible, what happens if the job is active, or potential side effects like cascading deletions. The brief parameter explanations do not cover behavioral impacts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a straightforward two-line format with a clear verb and argument list. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical context for a deletion operation, such as prerequisites (e.g., job must exist), failure scenarios, or irreversibility. The argument explanations are minimal and do not cover edge cases or implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides concise parameter descriptions: id is 'Replication job ID', force is 'Force removal (skip cleanup)', keep is 'Keep replicated data on target'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's title and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a replication job,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_replication_job, get_replication_job, and list_replication_jobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites stated, and no explanation of the conditions under which force or keep should be used. The description only lists arguments without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the action and parameter format, lacking details on destructive consequences, permissions, or irreversibility, which is critical given no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the action and parameter details without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation like user deletion, the description should cover aspects like existence checks, reversibility, or impact, which are missing, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds the format 'user@realm' for userid, which is not present in the schema, providing useful semantic guidance beyond the bare type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a user.' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other delete tools among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites or scenarios where deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, lightweight, auth requirements). The description only states purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded, every word adds value. No extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-param tool with an output schema, the description adequately lists the key fields (nodes online, quorum, HA state). No missing aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4 per rubric. The description adds no parameter details but none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves cluster status and lists specific attributes (nodes online, quorum, HA state). It is a specific verb+resource but could be better distinguished from other get_cluster_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_cluster_config or get_cluster_resources. The description lacks explicit context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only states 'get' which implies a read operation but does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication needs, or what 'runtime status' entails beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is extremely concise with two sentences plus an args section, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description provides enough context for a basic get operation. However, it could mention what kind of status information is returned (e.g., state, uptime) to improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists both parameters with minimal explanations ('The node name', 'The container ID (CTID)') which adds slight value over the schema titles but does not provide detailed validation or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it gets the current runtime status of a container, specifying the verb 'get' and resource 'runtime status' of a container, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_containers or get_container_config.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_vm_status or list_containers; no exclusions or preferred contexts mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist; description merely implies a read operation but lacks detail on permissions, error handling, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no superfluous content, front-loaded with the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential function and parameter, though it omits potential error cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter 'node' is described as 'The node name', adding basic meaning to a schema with 0% description coverage, but provides no constraints or format info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves the /etc/hosts file content for a node, using a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from many sibling get_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says 'Get SDN VNet configuration'. Does not disclose permissions, error behavior, or side effects. Minimal beyond name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no waste. Efficiently communicates purpose and parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With output schema, return value is defined. But missing context on when to call, prerequisites, or error scenarios. Adequate for a simple read tool but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; description adds only 'VNet ID' which is already implied. Does not explain format, constraints, or valid values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get SDN VNet configuration' with verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like create/list/delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like list_sdn_vnets or get_sdn_zone. Implied usage for a specific VNet by ID, but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description states 'extract' implying a read operation, but does not explicitly declare no side effects or permissions needed. With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context (e.g., read-only, required privileges).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point. The first sentence states the purpose, and the Args are clearly formatted. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context on error conditions, permissions, and edge cases. The tool is simple but the description leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides explanations for both parameters, supplementing the schema which lacked descriptions. It includes an example for the volume parameter, clarifying the expected format. This adds value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action 'extract' and the resource 'guest configuration from a vzdump backup archive'. Among siblings, it is unique as it deals with extracting config from backup archives, distinct from other get_* tools that retrieve live configs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the operation without disclosing behavior such as read-only nature, permission requirements, or edge cases (e.g., empty result). The description fails to compensate for missing annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with two short sentences plus args list. Every part is necessary and front-loaded. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It sufficiently describes the operation for a simple list tool, though it could add context about scope (e.g., 'for a specific container').
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds basic meaning for both params: node as 'node name' and vmid as 'container ID'. This provides minimal guidance beyond the schema's title fields but lacks format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all snapshots of a container' with specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools focused on creation, deletion, or rollback of container snapshots, and from VM snapshot listings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_vm_snapshots or other list operations. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'List content' implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, safe, or requires any specific permissions. It also does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one line for the purpose plus a parameter list, which is concise and front-loaded with the key action. The parameter list could be more structured (e.g., bullet points or formatting) but it is functionally clear and not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks completeness in explaining how this tool relates to other storage-related tools (e.g., when to use list_storage vs list_storage_content). It also does not mention pagination or result size limitations. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, it is minimally complete but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides parameter information beyond the schema: it lists allowed values for 'content' ('images', 'rootdir', 'vztmpl', 'iso', 'backup', 'snippets') and states that 'vmid' is a filter by VM ID. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this adds significant meaning. However, 'node' and 'storage' are left to be inferred from context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List content of a storage pool (disk images, ISOs, templates, backups).' This provides a specific verb ('List') and resource ('content of a storage pool'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_storage' (which lists storage pools) and 'get_storage_volume_info' (which gets details on a specific volume).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for listing or getting storage information, but the description does not mention, for example, that 'get_storage_volume_info' is for individual volumes or that other list tools exist. The user must infer usage from the name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'hard reset' implying a destructive action, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., potential data loss), required permissions, or state changes to the VM. For a destructive tool, more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences and an argument list. It front-loads the main purpose and avoids fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a reset operation (destructive, state-changing) and the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (though an output schema exists), prerequisites, or behavior under failure conditions. A more complete description would include warnings or success/failure indicators.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal meaning over the schema by stating that 'node' is the node name and 'vmid' is the VM ID. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this provides basic clarification, but does not offer examples, constraints, or format details beyond what is obvious from the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a hard reset of a VM, using a familiar analogy ('like pressing the reset button'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like reboot_vm, shutdown_vm, and stop_vm by specifying the action as a hard reset, which implies a forceful restart without graceful shutdown.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a simile (like pressing the reset button) that hints at when to use it (forceful reset), but lacks explicit guidance on when vs not to use it, or how it compares to reboot_vm or shutdown_vm. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the VM must be running, if the key event is asynchronous, permission requirements, or potential side effects. The description is too sparse for a mutation-like action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two lines plus a bulleted list of parameters—with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and followed by necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite simplicity, the description omits behavioral context: no mention of return values (though output schema exists), preconditions, or error states. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves the agent underinformed about execution expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), but the description lists each parameter with a short explanation and an example for 'key' (e.g., 'ctrl-alt-delete'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema names, but it does not specify allowed values or format constraints. Adequate but not extensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Send a key event to a VM') with a concrete example ('ctrl-alt-del') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_vm_monitor_command. The verb+resource pattern 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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running) or when not to use it (e.g., for monitor commands). Missing contextual cues for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'gracefully' and describes parameters like timeout and force_stop, suggesting a two-phase shutdown. However, it doesn't specify what happens if the container is already stopped, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args' list is efficient, though the format is slightly redundant. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description addresses the core operation and parameters but omits preconditions (e.g., container must be running) and postconditions. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter: node, vmid, timeout, force_stop. These are functional but lack detail on allowed values or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Gracefully shut down a container' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stop_container (which may not be graceful) and shutdown_vm (for VMs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stop_container, reboot_container, or suspend_container. The description does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects, prerequisites, permissions, or what happens on success/failure. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus two parameter lines. It is front-loaded with the action and has no extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema details, the description lacks important context such as error conditions, success indicators, and permissions. It is minimally complete for a simple stop action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds basic meanings for both parameters ('node name' and 'task UPID string'). It does not explain format constraints or how to obtain these values, which would be helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Stop (abort)' and the resource 'a running task', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'stop_vm' or 'stop_container' which stop specific resources rather than tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied from the name that it stops tasks, but no comparison to similar tools or conditions for use are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning potential side effects, authentication needs, error handling, or that the command may be destructive. A user or agent is left unaware of risks or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with only five short lines and a clear 'Args' section. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and parameters, with no redundancy or irrelevant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of executing arbitrary commands in a VM, the description lacks essential context: it does not mention that the QEMU Guest Agent must be active, that the tool may be dangerous if misused, or what the output schema returns. An output schema exists but is not described. The description is incomplete for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 0%, the description provides one-line explanations for each parameter (node, vmid, command, input_data). This adds basic meaning beyond the schema titles but lacks detail such as expected formats, constraints, or examples. For a tool with 4 parameters, the description meets the minimum but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Execute a command inside a VM via the QEMU Guest Agent,' which specifies the action (execute), resource (command in a VM), and mechanism (Guest Agent). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like vm_agent_file_read or vm_agent_set_password.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like vm_agent_file_read or vm_agent_exec_status. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the VM must have the QEMU Guest Agent installed and running) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, safety, or side effects. It only describes the purpose and parameters, leaving the agent unaware of potential mutability or read-only nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter list is clear but the 'Args:' formatting is slightly redundant given the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Parameters are fully covered, and an output schema exists (though not shown), so return info is not needed. However, missing context on errors, prerequisites, or the relationship to other guest agent commands reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description defines all three parameters with one-line explanations. While sufficient to understand required inputs, it lacks details on formats, constraints, or relationships (e.g., that pid comes from exec).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'status/result of a command previously executed via the guest agent'. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'vm_agent_exec' (which executes) and other guest agent tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after a 'vm_agent_exec' call by requiring the PID, but does not explicitly state when or when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a creation action but omits critical details: required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., data loss if filename exists), or the structure of the response. The behavioral picture is incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a structured Args list. Every line adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff. The structure is easy to scan and directly maps to the input schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers parameters well, it lacks broader context: no mention of prerequisites (e.g., storage availability), postconditions, or potential errors. An output schema exists but its contents are not referenced. The completeness is adequate for a simple creation tool but could better support error handling hints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by listing all 6 parameters with concise explanations. Notably, 'size' includes an example ('10G') and 'format' clarifies auto-detection and possible values. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's raw titles and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Allocate a new disk volume in storage.' This immediately conveys the tool's core function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_storage_volume or list_storage_content. The parameter list further clarifies the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing storage) or contrast with related operations like migrating a volume or resizing. The absence of usage context limits decision-making for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or required permissions. Only parameter details are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with a bullet list of parameters, no redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers parameter semantics well, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., return value, side effects). An output schema exists, so return values are not required, but additional context like validation or prerequisites would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'dev: Block device for the OSD (e.g. /dev/sdb)'). This adds value beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new Ceph OSD on a device.' - a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like create_ceph_pool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_ceph_pool) or prerequisites. The description only states the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the action and parameters, but does not explain side effects, error conditions, or implications of the operation (e.g., overwriting existing resources).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a one-line summary followed by a clear parameter list. No redundant information, and it is well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While parameter descriptions are present, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., whether the resource must already exist, if group must be pre-created, or return value). Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by providing meaningful parameter explanations, including format for sid, possible values for state, and semantics for max_relocate and max_restart. This adds value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a resource to HA management'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_ha_group or other creation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description merely states what it does without context for when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Create a new LVM thin pool' along with parameter listings. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, failure modes, or idempotency. This is insufficient for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: one sentence plus a parameter list with no extraneous content. Every piece of text is useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks context on prerequisites, return values (partially covered by output schema), or interactions with other resources. Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, but the description includes a brief explanation for each: node, name, device (as block device path), and add_to_storage (auto-add as storage). This adds meaning beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new LVM thin pool', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_lvm and create_zfs_pool by explicitly naming 'LVM thin pool'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_lvm, create_ceph_pool). No prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic creation action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with bullet points, each line provides unique information. Minimal fluff, though slightly verbose for parameter descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all parameters well but lacks usage context and behavioral details. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but missing guidance on when to use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds detailed explanations for each parameter, including format and conditions (e.g., 'password: only for pve/pam realms'). Fully compensates for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new user' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_user_token' and 'delete_user'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or context for usage provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. It lists parameters and defaults but does not mention side effects (e.g., resource allocation, potential conflicts with existing VM IDs, or required permissions). The behavior beyond parameter input is largely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured as a clear list of arguments with inline explanations, making it easy to scan. However, it is lengthy and could be more concise by grouping related parameters. It is front-loaded with the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers parameter semantics given the tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema. However, it lacks information on error handling, return values, or prerequisites like storage availability, which limits completeness for a 22-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning all parameter meaning comes from the tool description. The description explains each parameter with examples and default values (e.g., 'scsi0: First SCSI disk (e.g. "local-lvm:32")'), adding substantial value beyond schema field names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Create a new QEMU virtual machine,' which is a specific verb+resource. Among sibling tools like clone_vm and create_container, this tool is clearly distinguished as the primary VM creation function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use create_vm versus alternatives like clone_vm or create_container. There is no discussion of prerequisites, such as available node capacity or storage, nor any mention of when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get' (a read operation) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, rate limits, or data freshness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Highly concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and cover the parameter. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple get operation with one optional parameter and an output schema. However, it lacks details about what 'details' entails, which may be important given the broader tool context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by explaining the 'name' parameter as 'Account name (default: 'default')'. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a valid name or how to discover existing accounts.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get ACME account details', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_acme_accounts' by focusing on a single account's details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving details of an account by name, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'list_acme_accounts'. No guidance on prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description merely states it's a read operation ('Get') without additional behavioral context like permissions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no redundancy; directly states purpose and parameter format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a straightforward get operation with an output schema, but lacks usage guidance and behavioral detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaningful format specification ('type:vmid') and examples, which the schema's bare type 'string' lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('HA resource configuration'), distinguishing from sibling create/delete tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without mentioning permissions, read-only nature, error handling, or pagination. The output schema exists but behavioral traits are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every word is necessary—no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic action but lacks behavioral context. Adding details like permissions or prerequisites would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It defines 'node' as 'The node name,' which adds clarity but is minimal. A more detailed explanation of valid values or format would improve it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists available appliance templates (LXC templates) that can be downloaded. The verb 'list' and resource 'appliance templates' are specific, and no sibling tool has a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to view downloadable templates, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives. No sibling tool directly competes, so the need for differentiation is low.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Get details...' without disclosing behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling, or side effects. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences plus an Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy. The format hint for userid is efficiently placed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose and basic parameter details. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source for parameter meaning. It provides a format hint for 'userid' ('user@realm') but only a bare title for 'tokenid'. This adds some value but is minimal, earning a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get details for a specific API token' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_user_token, delete_user_token, and list_user_tokens by focusing on a single token's details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving details of a single token, but it does not explicitly compare with list_user_tokens or provide when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clarifies the 'current' parameter but does not mention side effects, permissions, error conditions, or that the operation is read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence is necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is minimally complete. It explains the parameters but lacks context on return format, error handling, or permissions, which are needed since no annotations are provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter: node is the node name, vmid is the VM ID, and current determines runtime vs pending config. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'configuration of a VM'. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_vm_pending by specifying the 'current' parameter that controls which configuration is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description only states the basic action. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., service disruption), authorization requirements beyond the password parameter, or any destructive implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a clear structure: a one-line purpose followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and moderate complexity, the description adequately covers parameters but misses cluster context (e.g., cluster must be initialized, node must be reachable). It is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter (e.g., 'force: Force join even with warnings'). These short explanations add meaning beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Join a node to an existing cluster', which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes itself from sibling cluster tools (e.g., get_cluster_config, create_cluster_firewall_rule) by focusing on the joining operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites like cluster existence or node preparation. The description lacks context on appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, permissions, or side effects. It merely states the action without adding transparency beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficiently worded sentence that directly states the purpose without any extraneous information. It is front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about scope (e.g., all groups or filtered), permission requirements, or how it relates to other firewall list tools, leaving some gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. According to the guidelines, when there are 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no extra semantic meaning since no parameters exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'firewall security groups', with a parenthetical explanation 'reusable sets of rules'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_firewall_aliases' or 'list_firewall_group_rules'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_firewall_group_rules' or 'list_firewall_aliases'. No usage context or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, lack of side effects, or any filtering scope). Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence clearly conveying the purpose with no extraneous words. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for a simple list tool with no parameters, but given many sibling tools, a bit more context (e.g., 'returns all IP sets in the cluster') would improve completeness. An output schema exists but is not shown; description doesn't need to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 4. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but no additional parameter info is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'cluster firewall IP sets' with clarification 'named groups of IPs', clearly differentiating from sibling tools like list_firewall_aliases or list_firewall_groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. The description provides no usage context despite many similar listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is expected to disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List all' without mentioning pagination, filtering, or any constraints, providing minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description is very brief and does not clarify scope (e.g., cluster-wide or node-specific), making it minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so description needs no parameter explanation. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but baseline is high due to no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'HA-managed resources', making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_ha_resource or create_ha_resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_ha_groups or get_ha_resource. The description lacks explicit context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose key behavioral traits. It mentions 'with usage info' but does not specify what usage info includes (e.g., size, available, used) or that this is a read-only operation. The nature of the response is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, well-structured with a header and bullet-like Args list. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic purpose and parameters, but given the lack of annotations and the presence of an output schema, it could be more complete by detailing the usage info fields. It is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds brief explanations for each parameter (node name, filter by content type, show only enabled storage), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare names. However, it does not provide formats, allowed values, or examples, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists storage pools on a specific node with usage info. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_storage (which lists all storage) and list_storage_content (which lists content on a storage) by specifying node and optional filters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by listing required and optional parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_storage or list_storage_content, nor does it provide 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states 'list all' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or if there are any limitations like pagination or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and an output schema not described, the description is minimally adequate for a simple list operation. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context, leaving room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4 since no clarification is needed beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists notification matchers, with a brief explanation that they are rules that route notifications. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notification_endpoints and list_notification_targets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_notification_endpoints or list_notification_targets. There is no mention of context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description should explicitly state that this is a read-only operation. While 'list' implies read-only, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or any rate limits. The description is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. For a simple list operation, it is complete enough to convey what the tool does.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, and description coverage is 100%. The description does not add any parameter-level details because none exist. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'PCI device mappings' with the intended purpose 'for passthrough'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_dir_mappings and list_usb_mappings which target different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. Given the large number of sibling tools, this is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering, permissions, or scope of zones returned (e.g., all zones vs user-visible).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise and front-loaded. The single sentence 'List SDN zones' contains no wasted words and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with no parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is adequate but could improve by noting that it returns SDN zone objects or that it lists zones the user has permission to view.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed as there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List SDN zones' clearly states the action (list) and resource (SDN zones), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_sdn_subnets or list_sdn_vnets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sdn_zone or other list tools. It does not mention context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the returned information fields but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the operation is read-only, if it has side effects, or any rate limiting. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with only two sentences and no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core purpose, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points for arguments).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, listing action) and the existence of an output schema for return values, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks details about node format, error behaviors, and result ordering, leaving some gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description only repeats the parameter name (node) and its type from the schema, adding no additional meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description should compensate, but it fails to provide extra context like expected format or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), the resource (QEMU virtual machines), and the scope (on a node) along with the returned fields (status, memory, CPU, disk info). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_containers or get_vm_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies that the tool lists VMs on a given node but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_vm_status for a single VM). The context is clear but lacks usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and lists parameters without detailing side effects, authorization needs, or operational constraints (e.g., whether the container must be stopped).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single-sentence summary followed by a clean list of parameters. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers parameter semantics adequately but lacks operational context such as container state requirements, potential downtime, or result format. Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained, but the description could be more complete for a data-moving operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for all 7 parameters, including examples for volume (e.g., 'rootfs', 'mp0') and clarification of delete_original. This substantially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool moves a container volume to different storage or to another container, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like move_vm_disk or migrate_container due to the explicit mention of container volume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, container state requirements, or comparison with similar tools like migrate_container or move_vm_disk.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the container must be stopped, if data is preserved, or any side effects beyond resizing. The description only lists parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a clean args list. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists (though not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks behavioral context like prerequisites, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. It is adequate for a straightforward operation but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by defining each parameter with examples: disk (e.g., 'rootfs', 'mp0') and size (e.g., '10G', '+2G'). This adds useful meaning beyond the schema types, though more detail on allowed formats could be helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Resize a container disk/volume' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'resize_vm_disk' by explicitly mentioning container, making it unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like resize_vm_disk or other disk operations. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., container must be stopped) or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, destructive potential, error behavior, or whether changes take effect immediately. The parameter explanations hint at 'don't change' behaviors, but overall transparency is low.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence for purpose followed by a well-organized parameter list). Each parameter is explained succinctly. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks usage context, behavioral details, and any mention of where firewall options are applied (per node vs per interface). For a tool with 7 parameters, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful explanations for each parameter beyond the schema's property titles. For example, 'enable: 1 = enable, 0 = disable, -1 = don't change.' clarifies the semantics. However, it does not specify valid values for log_level_in/out or the format of 'delete', leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set firewall options for a node.' clearly states the action (set) and the resource (firewall options for a node). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like set_cluster_firewall_options or set_vm_firewall_options by explicitly targeting node-level configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., set_cluster_firewall_options for cluster-wide rules). It does not mention prerequisites, required permissions, or context such as whether the node must be running. The parameter list only explains values, not usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses irreversibility, which is critical, but with no annotations, the description must cover more. It does not mention other behavioral traits like whether the VM must be stopped, permissions needed, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: a single sentence and a named list of parameters. No wasted words, and the irreversibility note is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but misses important context like the requirement for the VM to be stopped, which is typical for such an operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% coverage with descriptions, and the description only lists parameter names in an 'Args' section without adding meaning or constraints beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (convert), the resource (VM), and the result (template), with the key qualifier 'irreversible'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like clone_vm and convert_container_to_template.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage via the action description but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., VM state), or context for the irreversible operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Explains parameter behaviors (e.g., nofailback, restricted) but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., node existence), or return value. With no annotations, this is moderate coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise, front-loaded with purpose, and structures parameters clearly. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all parameters and hints at behavior, but misses prerequisites (e.g., nodes must exist, cluster setup) and does not mention idempotency or error conditions. Output schema exists but is not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Provides detailed explanations for all parameters, including formatting examples (e.g., 'node1:2,node2:1') and semantic meanings. Compensates fully for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Create an HA group' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like create_ha_resource, but could provide a bit more context on what an HA group is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_ha_resource or update_ha_group. The description lacks usage context and prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only lists parameter meanings without explaining side effects (e.g., whether the rule is applied immediately, if it requires specific permissions, or how it interacts with existing rules). The description lacks crucial behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a structured bullet list with clear line-per-parameter formatting, and the purpose sentence is front-loaded. It is reasonably concise, though each parameter explanation could be more terse without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, 4 required) and the presence of an output schema (not shown in description), the description covers parameter meanings but misses behavioral context, return value hints, and usage examples. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning by explaining each parameter (e.g., action: 'ACCEPT', 'DROP', 'REJECT'; type: 'in', 'out', 'group'). However, explanations are brief and lack constraints like valid formats for dport or the difference between source and dest when using macros.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Create a firewall rule for a QEMU VM,' clearly indicating the verb (create), resource (firewall rule), and context (QEMU VM). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_cluster_firewall_rule or create_container_firewall_rule.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description implies usage for QEMU VMs via its wording, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for containers or clusters). There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternative tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'immediate backup' but does not address safety (e.g., whether it is destructive), required permissions, idempotency, or side effects like blocking during backup. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured as a brief summary followed by a clear parameter list. It is relatively concise, though the parameter list is somewhat lengthy. Every line contributes value, and the format is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters) and existence of an output schema, the description covers parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks operational context such as how the backup behaves (e.g., asynchronous), potential errors, or prerequisites like node readiness. This leaves gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning to each parameter beyond the schema's defaults and types. For instance, it clarifies that vmid is comma-separated and conditionally required, and explains mode and compress options. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start an immediate backup (vzdump) on a node.' It specifies the action (start), resource (backup), and context (node), distinguishing it from related tools like create_backup_job which handles scheduled backups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage hints (e.g., vmid required if not all_guests) but fails to explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_backup_job or backup-related operations. There is no direct guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the destructive action 'Remove' but does not disclose side effects, such as impact on firewall rules, idempotency, or behavior if the entry does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple deletion tool with 2 parameters and an output schema (present but not described), the description is adequate. However, it lacks information about idempotency, prerequisites (e.g., IP set must exist), and what the output contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'name' as 'IP set name' and 'cidr' as 'IP address or CIDR to remove'. With 0% schema coverage, this is valuable, though format constraints (e.g., CIDR notation) could be clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Remove an IP/CIDR from an IP set' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like add_firewall_ipset_entry.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage as the inverse of add_firewall_ipset_entry, but lacks context on prerequisites or alternative actions like deleting the entire IP set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Get pending configuration changes', omitting any information about side effects, idempotency, or behavior when no changes exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences (purpose line and parameter list) with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no enums, and an output schema), the description is mostly complete. However, the lack of any behavioral context in the absence of annotations leaves a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's titles by labeling node as 'The node name' and vmid as 'The container ID'. This is a baseline clarification but not significantly enriching given the schema already indicates types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'pending configuration changes for a container', which distinguishes this tool from siblings that retrieve other container information like config or status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_container_config'. It lacks context on when pending changes are relevant, such as after a configuration update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description merely restates the name. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, auth requirements, or that it is a read-only operation. The description adds no value beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 13 words. Every word is informative, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately states what the tool returns (aliases, ipsets, names). It is sufficient for a simple list operation, though it could mention that it combines multiple reference types.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to explain, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'available firewall references' with specific examples (aliases, ipsets, names). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_firewall_aliases or list_firewall_ipsets which are more granular.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it aggregates multiple reference types, nor does it direct the agent to more specific list tools if needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns the next available VMID and explains the parameter, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires any permissions, or has side effects. For a simple query tool, this is acceptable but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using two sentences without any redundant or superfluous information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers the parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a single parameter and an output schema (noted in context), the description is complete. It covers the tool's function and the parameter's behavior. The existence of an output schema means return value documentation is not required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the single parameter 'vmid', explaining that 0 means auto-assign. With schema description coverage at 0%, this is essential. It compensates well for the lack of schema documentation, though it could also mention any constraints or valid ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the next available VMID in the cluster.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('VMID'), distinguishing it from other listing tools like list_vms or get_vm_config. However, it could be slightly more explicit about its use case (e.g., for VM creation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking VM ID availability but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_vms or get_vm_config. While the tool is unique among siblings, no when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose that the tool is read-only, lacks side effects, or any requirements (e.g., authentication). It is too brief to convey behavioral traits beyond the basic listing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and is optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It could mention that it returns all available SDN controllers, but the current text is sufficient for a simple list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the input schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context by specifying the resource type and giving an example, which is appropriate for the baseline of 4 when no parameters exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and the resource ('SDN controllers'), with an example ('e.g. EVPN controller'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_sdn_controller' by implying a list operation rather than a single item retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sdn_controller' for details or other list tools. It does not mention appropriate contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states 'List' and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, scope of resources listed, or potential side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description should convey more.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the description is minimal, it adequately covers a simple list operation with no parameters and an existing output schema. Some additional context about what the list contains could improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List SDN virtual networks (VNets)' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_sdn_subnets or list_sdn_zones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sdn_vnet or list_sdn_subnets. The description does not provide usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 implies a read-only list operation, which is accurate, but does not elaborate on safety, permissions, or side effects. The description is minimally transparent but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, though it could be slightly more informative (e.g., specifying that it returns a list). It earns a high conciseness score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It states the tool lists USB mappings, but does not mention the output format or any constraints (e.g., that it only shows configured mappings).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, but none is needed. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List USB device mappings for passthrough' clearly states the verb (List), the specific resource (USB device mappings), and the context (for passthrough). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_pci_mappings and list_dir_mappings, which target different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use USB passthrough mappings compared to PCI passthrough or other mapping types. It lacks explicit context for selection or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the parameter descriptions. Without annotations, the description lacks details on side effects, performance, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with three lines, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (two optional boolean parameters) and the presence of an output schema (handling return values), the description is fairly complete. It could mention sorting or pagination, but these are not critical for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, but the description adds clear explanations for both 'enabled' and 'full', compensating for the missing schema descriptions. This adds value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all users in Proxmox', specifying the action (list), resource (users), and scope (all in Proxmox). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_user' (single user) and 'create_user'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user' for a single user or other list tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic functionality without disclosing permissions, rate limits, or what tokens are returned. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, with a clear one-liner and parameter documentation. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits what kind of token information is listed. The tool is simple but could benefit from a bit more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds the format 'user@realm' for the userid parameter, which is not in the schema. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List API tokens for a user', specifying the action (list) and resource (API tokens). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_user_token and delete_user_token.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides input format guidance ('user@realm') but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user_token. Usage context is implied but not clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Register', which indicates creation but does not mention side effects, idempotency, error handling, or permission requirements. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise—one short sentence plus parameter list—and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be more structured with explicit purpose and usage sections, and the parameter descriptions are terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (unseen), the description omits return value information and any behavioral context beyond creation. It is sufficient for a simple registration but lacks completeness for a full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by briefly explaining each parameter: contact email, directory URL (defaults to Let's Encrypt), name, and TOS URL. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic titles, though more detail on constraints or formats would improve.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Register a new ACME account', specifying the action (registering) and resource (ACME account). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_acme_accounts, get_acme_account by indicating a create operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists parameters but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies use for creating an account, but lacks explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or comparison with other ACME tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update an HA group.' without mentioning that it modifies existing settings, potential side effects (e.g., whether changes are applied immediately), or prerequisites (e.g., existing group). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short with a clear structure: a single purpose statement followed by an Args list. The main action is front-loaded. However, the prose is minimal, and the Args list could be integrated into a more natural explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (context indicates true), return values are likely covered. However, the description omits important context such as error cases, idempotency, or any behavioral notes. For a tool updating HA groups, the description is adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args:' block provides brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'nodes: Node list with optional priority.', 'nofailback: Don't fail back.'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and types, partially compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The tool name 'update_ha_group' clearly indicates its action, and the description 'Update an HA group.' confirms it updates an existing HA group. Among sibling tools like create_ha_group, delete_ha_group, get_ha_group, and list_ha_groups, this stands out as the update operation. Specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to update vs create or delete. It simply says 'Update an HA group.' which implies usage context but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It explains the delete parameter for removing members, but misses details like whether membership is additive or overwritten, and does not cover idempotency or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a parameter list. No redundant text, front-loaded purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain returns. However, it lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context, making it adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds detailed semantics for all 5 parameters (poolid, comment, vms, storage, delete), including format and behavior. Since schema has 0% coverage, the description fully compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update a resource pool (add/remove members)', clearly indicating the verb and resource. However, it omits that the 'comment' parameter allows updating the pool description, so slightly incomplete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_pool or delete_pool. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'apply' (mutation) but lacks details about destructiveness, required permissions, error scenarios, or whether changes are applied asynchronously. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and scope. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal; it correctly identifies the tool's purpose but could provide more context about what 'pending' means, whether the operation is blocking, and how to verify success. Given the output schema exists but is not visible, completeness is adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Apply'), the target resource ('pending SDN configuration changes'), and the scope ('to all nodes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, update, or delete SDN objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after SDN configuration changes are made, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only mentions clone type (full/linked) but fails to disclose prerequisites (e.g., VM must be stopped), side effects, or limitations. This is insufficient for a complex mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear introductory sentence and a parameter list. No wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers purpose and parameters, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., source VM state), behavioral details (e.g., network handling), and outcomes. An output schema exists but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description lists each parameter with brief explanations (e.g., 'target: Target node for the clone (default: same node)'), adding meaning beyond the schema's type/title fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Clone a VM to create a new one' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clone_container and create_vm by focusing on VM cloning and mentioning full/linked clone types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for cloning VMs but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose full vs linked clone or when to use alternatives like create_vm. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'irreversible', which is critical, but omits other important traits like required permissions, whether the container must be stopped, or what happens to the container post-conversion.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence for the action plus two lines for parameters. Front-loaded with the main purpose, no redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks prerequisites and constraints (e.g., container existence, state requirements). It does not mention return values, but the output schema may cover that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since schema coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning by naming parameters ('node', 'vmid') and providing brief descriptions. However, 'node: The node name' could be more precise (e.g., Proxmox cluster node).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('convert'), the resource ('container'), and the outcome ('template'), differentiating it from the sibling 'convert_vm_to_template'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'convert_vm_to_template' or prerequisites (e.g., container must be stopped). The only usage hint is 'irreversible', which is a warning, not a guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, idempotency, or consequences of creating a rule. It only lists parameters, missing broader context like scope (all nodes) or interaction with other firewall tools.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear introductory sentence followed by a parameter list. It efficiently conveys necessary information without verbosity, though a more structured grouping (e.g., required vs optional) could improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all parameter semantics but lacks higher-level context, such as how cluster rules interact with other firewall rules or prerequisites. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return-value details, but overall completeness is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description provides meaningful inline definitions for all 13 parameters, including allowed values (e.g., action: 'ACCEPT', 'DROP', 'REJECT') and defaults. This compensates fully for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a cluster-level firewall rule,' which precisely identifies the tool's action and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_container_firewall_rule and create_vm_firewall_rule by specifying 'cluster-level.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for cluster-level rules but does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_vm_firewall_rule for VM-specific rules). It lacks exclusion criteria or contextual triggers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the rule is appended to a list, if existing rules are affected, or if specific permissions are required. It only describes the creation action without side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, starting with a one-line purpose followed by a numbered parameter list. It could be more structured (e.g., grouping parameters), but it efficiently conveys necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description thoroughly covers parameter semantics but lacks information about the output (despite an output schema existing), error conditions, or post-creation behavior. It is adequate for parameter documentation but incomplete for general usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial value by explaining each parameter (e.g., action values, type options, enable meaning). It compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action and resource: 'Create a firewall rule for an LXC container.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_cluster_firewall_rule and create_vm_firewall_rule.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists parameters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_cluster_firewall_rule or create_vm_firewall_rule. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and type field.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or authorization requirements. It only states the operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and provides examples, making it complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing examples of what options are retrieved, aiding the agent in understanding the output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get datacenter/cluster-wide options' and lists examples (keyboard layout, console, language), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_cluster_config or get_cluster_firewall_options.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, or any prerequisites. It simply describes the operation without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action ('list') without clarifying read-only nature, authentication requirements, or potential performance impact, which is inadequate for a tool that accesses cluster resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with only two sentences plus the Args list. It front-loads the core purpose, though the structure could be improved by separating the filtering instructions more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single-parameter input and existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects. However, it lacks any context about output format, pagination, or error handling, which would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds value beyond the schema by enumerating the allowed filter values ('vm', 'storage', 'node', 'sdn', 'pool') and clarifying that empty returns all. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all resources across the cluster' and lists specific types (VMs, containers, storage, nodes), which is a distinct purpose compared to sibling tools like list_vms or list_containers that focus on specific resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for an overview of all cluster resources but does not explicitly distinguish from the many specific list tools available as siblings, nor does it provide guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the information types but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or error handling. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences plus an Args section. It is front-loaded with core purpose and includes a useful example. Minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, parameter clarification, and expected info types. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for the 'node' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by adding an example ('e.g. pve1') and clarifying it expects a node name, which adds meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it gets detailed status of a specific node, listing CPU, memory, disk, uptime, and kernel info. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_node_disks or get_node_config by being a comprehensive status tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for overall node health but does not explicitly state when to use it over more specific node info tools. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 describes the scan operation but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or behaves differently under failure conditions. The tool name implies a get operation, but a scan may have network effects; this is not clarified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a clear 'Args:' list for parameters. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy. The argument list is slightly verbose but effective, earning a 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The parameter descriptions are sufficient. However, the lack of behavioral transparency (e.g., permissions, side effects) reduces completeness. For a scanning tool with moderate complexity, it is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool's description adds meaningful explanations for all parameters: 'node' is the node name, 'scan_type' lists permissible values, 'server' is required for specific types. This compensates fully for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Scan') and the resource ('available storage targets'), listing specific types (NFS, CIFS, iSCSI, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling get_node_* tools like get_node_storage_status or get_node_disks by focusing on scanning for available targets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides parameter details and conditional requirements (server required for nfs, cifs, iscsi, pbs), implying usage for scanning storage targets. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_storage or get_node_storage_status, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully characterize behavior. It indicates a read-only operation (getting stats) but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output structure beyond the vague 'usage over time'. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with 4 short sentences, including a structured Args block. Every sentence provides essential information without waste. It is front-loaded with the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose and parameters but does not describe the output format, despite an output schema existing. It mentions 'usage over time' but lacks detail on what the returned data looks like (e.g., timestamps, metrics). Adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds clear explanations for each parameter: 'node' is the node name, 'storage' is the storage ID, and 'timeframe' with valid values. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves RRD statistics for a storage pool over time. The verb 'get' and resource 'storage pool RRD statistics' are specific and distinguish it from related tools like get_storage_config or get_storage_volume_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists parameters and timeframe options, implying when to use it (for historical usage data), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool returns RRD statistics but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permissions required, rate limits, or potential side effects. The lack of explicit read-only hint or safety information is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a structured list of arguments. Every sentence is necessary, and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are only three parameters and an output schema exists (though not described), the description covers the basics. However, it lacks details on the output format, time resolution, and any prerequisites. Still adequate for a simple data retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides arg-style explanations for all three parameters. It adds value by listing valid values for 'timeframe' ('hour', 'day', 'week', 'month', 'year'), which goes beyond the schema's default and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'RRD statistics data for a VM', and the scope 'CPU, memory, disk, network over time'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_container_rrddata and get_storage_rrddata by specifying the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on context or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic function without disclosing behaviors like pagination, filtering, or ordering. While the operation is simple, additional context would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 8 words, directly front-loading the purpose. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and no parameters, the description is functional but could mention that it lists only vzdump backup jobs (not all scheduled jobs) and note any permissions or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100% empty). Baseline 4 applies as the description need not add parameter details. It correctly implies no inputs needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'scheduled backup jobs (vzdump)', and the scope 'in the cluster'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_backup_job' (single job) and 'list_scheduled_jobs' (broader scope).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_backup_job' for a specific job, 'list_scheduled_jobs' for all scheduled jobs). No explicit when-not or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, permissions required, or performance considerations. The word 'List' hints at read-only, but explicit disclosure is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Could be slightly more informative (e.g., about access or output), but it is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (context: 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately states the operation and scope, though it could mention that this operation is safe to call or requires cluster permissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none. Baseline 4 for zero parameters with good schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'cluster-level firewall rules'. The name itself makes the scope clear, and it distinguishes from sibling list tools for node, container, and VM scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating 'cluster-level', but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_node_firewall_rules or list_vm_firewall_rules. No when-not or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. Minimal information is given beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences plus a parameter list. It front-loads the core purpose and includes only essential information. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about how parameters relate (e.g., how to find node, storage, volume) and does not mention prerequisites or typical workflows. Adequate but could be more helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing parameters with clear one-line explanations (e.g., 'node: The node name.'). While it lacks details like formats or sources, it adds sufficient meaning beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('List files'), resource ('a backup volume'), and context ('for file-level restore (PBS backups)'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_backup_file_restore' and 'download_file_restore' by specifying the exact use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing files in a backup volume but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_storage_content' or 'list_backup_jobs'. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List all resource pools' without mentioning read-only nature, required permissions, or output format. The presence of an output schema mitigates this slightly, but the description adds no transparency beyond the literal action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list-all tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It correctly indicates the scope ('all resource pools') and does not require further detail given the structural components.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers parameter semantics. Per guidelines, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. No additional description is necessary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'resource pools', distinguishing it from sibling 'list_*' tools like list_containers or list_vms. It 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_pool (which retrieves a single pool) or other list tools. The agent has no basis for selection beyond the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or scope. It only states 'List all replication jobs' without details on how the list is returned or any limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no extraneous information, matching the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context on scope (e.g., cluster-wide) and any prerequisites, which would aid completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter information. According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all replication jobs in the cluster' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (replication jobs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_replication_job (single job) and create/delete replication jobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as get_replication_job for details or create_replication_job for adding jobs. The usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is accurate. With no annotations provided, the description should carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any other behavioral traits (e.g., authorization requirements, rate limits), but the operation is simple and safe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a clear list of arguments. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which describes return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose and parameters. Minor omission: the default behavior of 'enabled' is mentioned but could be more explicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining the 'type' parameter (listing possible values like dir, lvm, etc.) and the 'enabled' parameter (default True). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it could be more precise about value formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all configured storage pools at the datacenter level. It includes optional filters for type and enabled status. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_storage_content' or 'list_directory_storage', which operate on different aspects of storage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool (to list storage pools) and mentions available filters. It lacks guidance on when not to use it, such as when needing storage content or node-specific storage, and does not reference alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states action without disclosing side effects, prerequisites, or behavior beyond resumption. Lacks detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no waste; purpose and parameters front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple tool with two required params and an output schema, but lacks behavioral context like prerequisites or effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds meaning beyond schema by explaining 'node: The node name' and 'vmid: The VM ID', especially since schema description coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Resume a suspended/paused VM' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like suspend_vm and stop_vm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for suspended/paused VMs, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, nor alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the destructive consequence ('current state will be lost') without annotations. It adds value beyond the tool name, though it could mention whether the snapshot is preserved after rollback.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, includes a warning, and front-loads the purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple action and required parameters, the description is mostly adequate but lacks information about output, error handling, or whether the snapshot remains available.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only lists parameter names (node, vmid, snapname) without additional meaning like format or examples. This barely adds value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (rollback) and resource (VM snapshot) and explicitly warns that current state will be lost. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_vm_snapshot and delete_vm_snapshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rollback_container_snapshot. It implies usage for reverting VM state, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 explains the todisk parameter differentiating suspend-to-RAM vs suspend-to-disk, but does not mention reversibility, prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running), or potential side effects. Some transparency is present but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: two sentences followed by a parameter list. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy or waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a VM operation with two modes and no annotations, the description is adequate but lacks details on the return value, prerequisites, and when to use each mode. The output schema exists but is not shown; however, the description doesn't reference it. More context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions). The description adds explanations for all three parameters: node, vmid, and todisk. While the explanations are minimal (e.g., 'The node name'), they provide meaning beyond the schema titles. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions to a moderate degree.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool suspends a VM with two modes: pause execution or hibernate to disk. It uses a specific verb ('Suspend') and identifies the resource ('VM'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like shutdown_vm, stop_vm, or reset_vm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the two suspension modes (pause vs hibernate) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like shutdown_vm or stop_vm. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 correctly identifies the operation as a mutation (update). However, it fails to mention side effects (e.g., VM restart required, authorization needs, whether changes take effect immediately). Basic behavioral context is present but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description opens with a clear, front-loaded purpose statement. However, the bulk is a verbose list of all 15 parameters with repetitive 'The...' phrasing. This section could be more concise or structured (e.g., grouping optional vs required). The verbosity detracts from quick scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 15 parameters (2 required) and no output schema (though context signals indicate one exists), the description covers all parameter names and basic types. But it lacks operational details like whether changes apply immediately, if the VM must be stopped, or what error states might occur. For a mutation tool, more context on behavior and prerequisites is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 15 parameters with brief type hints (e.g., 'Memory in MB', 'CPU type', 'Network config'). For common parameters (e.g., name, memory, cores), this is sufficient. But for complex parameters (net0, agent, hotplug), the explanations are too vague to fully understand expected format or constraints. Overall, adds some value but not comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly starts with 'Update the configuration of an existing VM. Only provided parameters are changed.' This uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing VM'), making the purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like create_vm (creation) and get_vm_config (read).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states 'Only provided parameters are changed,' implying partial updates and clarifying idempotency. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear. A slight lack of explicit exclusions prevents a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states that it starts guests. It does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or error behavior, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with one sentence and a parameter explanation. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the sole parameter and the tool's action. Given the output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, it is mostly complete, though error handling details are absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'vms' parameter by specifying it is a comma-separated list of VMIDs and that an empty value means all guests, compensating for the lack of schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it starts multiple guests across the cluster, distinguishing it from single-start tools like start_vm and other bulk operations like bulk_shutdown_guests.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for starting multiple guests and explains the 'vms' parameter, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like startall_node or single-start tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It lacks information on side effects, prerequisites (e.g., must device exist?), idempotency, or error states.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: one for purpose and a bullet list for parameters. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the action and parameters. Although it omits return values, an output schema exists to handle that. It is complete for a simple creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description lists parameters with explanations (e.g., 'filesystem' shows types 'ext4, xfs', 'add_to_storage' explains auto-add). This compensates significantly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a directory-based storage mount from a device,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_lvm or create_zfs_pool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The name and description imply it's for directory-based storage, but no exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, return format, or any side effects. The minimal description leaves agents with no information beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and object. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete for a simple getter. However, a bit more context about the purpose of the URL could improve clarity among many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% by default. With no parameters to describe, the description doesn't need to add anything, meeting the baseline for 0 params.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'ACME Terms of Service URL'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_acme_account and get_acme_directories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the simplicity suggests straightforward use, the dimension expects explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool 'gets' configuration, implying read-only, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or any constraints. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is clear and to the point. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (indicated in context signals), so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose adequately, though could elaborate on the components slightly more. Still, with output schema present, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so no additional semantics are needed. The description adds context by listing what the configuration includes (corosync, nodes, join info), adding value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get the current cluster configuration' with specific components (corosync, nodes, join info). It distinguishes from siblings like get_cluster_config_nodes and get_cluster_join_info by encompassing all three.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it is for a combined view, it does not state when to prefer it over the more specific siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get' (suggesting read-only) but provides no details on behavior under error conditions, required permissions, or side effects. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates this, but the description lacks explicit behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key details. No redundant or extraneous information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with a provided output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It mentions cluster-wide scope and example fields. However, it could briefly note that the operation is read-only and returns current settings, but this is not critical given the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by enumerating example options (enable, policy_in, policy_out), giving the agent a concrete sense of what the output will contain. This clarifies the scope beyond a generic 'options' label.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Get cluster-wide firewall options' and lists example fields like enable, policy_in, policy_out. It clearly identifies the resource (cluster firewall options) and action (get), distinguishing it from sibling tools such as 'set_cluster_firewall_options' (set) and 'list_cluster_firewall_rules' (list rules).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied through naming conventions, but there is no mention of when not to use it or recommended alternatives. The agent must rely on context from sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only operation ('Get'), which aligns with expectations. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a simple read, this is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence of 65 characters. It front-loads the purpose and lists key output fields without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could optionally mention the output format (e.g., JSON object), but the output schema likely covers that. Context about when to use (e.g., for monitoring HA health) is missing but not critical for a simple getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds value by listing the returned status fields ('active, quorum, manager status'), which clarifies the output beyond the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('HA manager status'), and explicitly lists the fields returned ('active, quorum, manager status'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_ha_manager_status by focusing on the overall manager status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_ha_manager_status or other cluster status tools. The agent receives no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must indicate behavioral traits. The description says 'Get configuration', implying a read-only operation, which is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool. However, it does not mention any authentication requirements, side effects, or rate limits. Given the lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences: one for the tool's purpose and one for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no redundant or filler text. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential (what it does, what input is needed). The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it slightly lacks context about the typical use case (e.g., configuration vs. status), but remains largely complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description defines the 'storage' parameter as 'The storage ID', which adds semantic meaning beyond the raw schema (string type). It clarifies the purpose of the parameter, but does not elaborate on format or constraints (e.g., length, patterns). This partially compensates but remains basic.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get configuration' on the resource 'specific storage pool', which is distinct from sibling tools like 'list_storage' (list all) and 'get_storage_rrddata' (time-series data). The verb and resource are 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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving configuration of a single storage pool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_storage' for enumerating pools or 'get_storage_volume_info' for volume details). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Get' implying read-only, but lacks explicit mention of no side effects, network call, or other traits. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could be slightly more specific about the return value (e.g., version string), but 'version information' suffices.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable. Baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'Proxmox VE API version information', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_node_version' which focus on node specifics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you need the API version) but provides no guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives among many similar getter tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe. It provides no details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects, though the name implies it is read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single-line purpose followed by a clean arg listing. Every sentence is essential, and the information is front-loaded with no redundant text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and parameters. It does not need to detail return values. The context of sibling tools is extensive, but the description sufficiently differentiates this tool by focusing on 'pending' changes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the schema has no parameter descriptions. The arg docstring provides minimal descriptions ('The node name.' and 'The VM ID.'), which adds some meaning beyond the bare property titles but is still basic. It does not specify constraints (e.g., valid node names, VM ID range).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves pending configuration changes for a VM, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pending changes'). It also includes the qualifier 'not yet applied,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vm_config (applied config) and get_vm_status (runtime status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for viewing unapplied changes via 'not yet applied,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_vm_config or get_vm_status. No when-not guidance or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, authentication needs, rate limits). Bare minimum.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Perfectly concise for a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite minimal description, the tool is trivial (zero parameters, list only). Output schema exists to describe return values. Slightly incomplete by not hinting at the relationship to get_acme_plugin.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters, schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for no parameters is 4. Description adds no parameter info, but none needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'ACME DNS challenge plugins'. It distinguishes from sibling get_acme_plugin which retrieves a single plugin.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when or when-not to use, but the simple nature of a list implies usage for getting available plugins. No alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. However, since this is a simple read operation with no parameters, the lack of detail is less critical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it could benefit from additional context such as the output format or typical use case. Still, it is efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters and a likely straightforward output (list of groups), the description is sufficiently complete. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need for extra explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all user groups'). It is specific and directly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_users' or 'list_pools' by specifying 'user groups'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other list tools (e.g., `list_users`, `list_pools`). There are many sibling tools, and the description offers no context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations; description only says 'List IPAM plugins' without disclosing read-only nature, scope, or authentication needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words, perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter list tool with output schema, the description is mostly complete, though could mention 'all available' or read-only nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so description need not add param info; it does not hinder understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists IPAM plugins, distinguishing it from 'get_sdn_ipam' which retrieves a single plugin.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, but the name and description imply listing versus getting details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the parameters but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, potential side effects (e.g., destructive actions), rate limits, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with clear sections (Args) and is relatively concise. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's raw nature and the presence of an output schema, the description covers basic usage. However, it lacks information on return value format, error behavior, or how to interpret results, leaving some context gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains each parameter (method, path, params) in its docstring, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has no descriptions and only a default for params). This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it makes arbitrary Proxmox API calls for endpoints not covered by specific tools, effectively distinguishing it from its many siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly tells when to use this tool ('not covered by specific tools'), providing clear context, though it doesn't elaborate on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description describes parameters but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether changes take effect immediately, require authorization, or are destructive. For a tool that modifies firewall rules, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is somewhat lengthy due to detailed parameter explanations, but structured with bullet points and front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is thorough in explaining parameters. It could mention that it updates existing settings or returns confirmation, but the output schema may cover return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 6 parameters: acceptable values for enable and ebtables (-1,0,1), policy options (ACCEPT/REJECT/DROP), log_ratelimit format, and delete. This adds immense value beyond the schema's type/default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Set cluster-wide firewall options' and lists all parameters with allowed values. Distinguishes from sibling tools like set_node_firewall_options and set_vm_firewall_options by specifying 'cluster-wide' scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implicitly indicates usage for cluster-wide firewall settings via 'cluster-wide' keyword, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with similar tools like set_node_firewall_options. No exclusions or prerequisites provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the append parameter's behavior but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or error handling. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, but it lacks details on the mutation process.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and efficient, consisting of one sentence followed by a clear list of parameters. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the description covers the main operation. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. However, it omits prerequisites like the role needing to exist, but overall it is adequate for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to all three parameters: roleid is described as 'Role ID,' privs as 'Comma-separated list of privileges,' and append as 'Append privileges instead of replacing.' This is valuable given 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update role privileges,' specifying the verb 'update' and the resource 'role privileges.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_role, delete_role, get_role, and list_roles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_acl or update_group. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description lists parameters and expected format (e.g., ipconfig0 examples) but does not disclose side effects like VM restart, permissions needed, or if changes are immediate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single-line summary plus bulleted list of args. Efficient, front-loaded, and clearly structured, though the list is long but justified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all parameter semantics and formats. Lacks contextual details like whether VM needs to be stopped or if changes take effect immediately. Output schema likely covers return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description fully explains each parameter with examples (e.g., ipconfig0, sshkeys). Adds significant value beyond bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set Cloud-Init parameters for a VM' with specific parameters listed, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_vm_cloudinit or update_vm_config.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., update_vm_config). No prerequisites or conditions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It only says 'List known ACME directory URLs,' which implies a read operation but offers no details on side effects, authentication requirements, or data freshness. Minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence with no extraneous words. Front-loaded and efficient, earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It provides the essential information: what the tool lists. No further context is necessary given low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). According to guidelines, base score is 4 for no parameters. The description adds no extra parameter info, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states action ('List') and resource ('known ACME directory URLs'). It distinguishes from sibling tools such as get_acme_account, get_acme_plugin, and get_acme_tos by specifying ACME directories specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not mention alternatives or context, but the tool's purpose is straightforward and implied by its name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states it retrieves metadata, indicating a read operation, but lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, or whether it aggregates data across nodes. The verb 'Get' suggests safety, but transparency is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key action and scope, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does (retrieve Ceph metadata including versions and services across nodes). No further context is essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none are needed; the schema itself fully covers the empty parameter set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Ceph metadata') and further clarifies scope with 'versions, services across nodes.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ceph_config or list_ceph_pools, which target specific Ceph aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving Ceph metadata, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_ceph_status_cluster vs. get_ceph_metadata). No exclusions or comparison to sibling tools are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description correctly indicates a read operation with no side effects, but with no annotations provided, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or behavior when the node is offline. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a structured parameter list. It is concise with no extraneous information, using only 6 lines effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all parameters and the output schema is present, but it does not specify that the node must be online or mention error conditions like invalid node names. Overall almost complete with minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides clear explanations for all 5 parameters, including default values and date format requirements. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'system log (syslog) entries from a node'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_journal and get_node_firewall_log, which read other log types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_node_journal or get_node_firewall_log. The description only explains parameters without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation (List) but does not disclose details like authentication requirements, pagination, or side effects. However, the description is not misleading and adds the types of metric servers, providing marginal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without waste. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema (present but not shown), the description is complete. It specifies the types of metric servers (InfluxDB, Graphite), which is sufficient for a simple list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter details but none are needed, so it meets expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'metric servers' with specific examples (InfluxDB, Graphite). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that list other resources (e.g., list_vms, list_storage), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_metric_server or other list tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation by stating 'List', but does not explicitly disclose behavioral traits beyond the returned fields. No annotations are present, so the description partially compensates, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key information. No redundancy or unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. No additional context is needed for this simple list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all nodes in the Proxmox cluster and specifies the returned data (status, CPU, memory, uptime). It distinguishes itself from other list_* sibling tools by targeting nodes specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when this tool is preferred over other list_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'List,' but does not explicitly state that it is safe, has no side effects, or what permissions might be needed. The description is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of four words, highly concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, has output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose. The presence of an output schema means the description need not detail return values. It is complete for a straightforward listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the input schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add further parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all available roles,' specifying the verb (list) and resource (roles). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_role, delete_role, update_role, and get_role by clearly indicating a listing operation for all roles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_role (for a specific role) or other listing tools. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the graceful shutdown via ACPI and the fallback mechanism controlled by force_stop. However, it does not disclose what happens on timeout=0, error conditions, return values, or whether the operation is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a short sentence explaining the core functionality, followed by a clear, bulleted parameter list. Every sentence is necessary, and the information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose and parameters adequately but lacks details on preconditions (e.g., VM must exist and be running), error handling, output behavior, or the requirement for ACPI support in the VM. Given the complexity and presence of many sibling tools, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds meaning beyond the raw schema. It explains each parameter: node, vmid, timeout (in seconds), and force_stop (default true). It clarifies the role of timeout and force_stop in the fallback behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it shuts down a VM gracefully via ACPI, with a fallback to hard stop. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop_vm (likely immediate kill) and reboot_vm (restart). The verb 'shut down' and resource 'VM' are 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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for graceful shutdown but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. siblings like stop_vm. It mentions the fallback behavior but lacks explicit do's and don'ts or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description explains key behavioral aspects: force flag to override running state, purge effect on replication/HA/backup/ACLs, and destroy_unreferenced_disks. It does not mention irreversibility but clearly indicates destructiveness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single sentence for purpose followed by a bulleted parameter list. All information is relevant and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers purpose, preconditions, and parameter behavior, but does not mention the output schema or any post-deletion effects (e.g., irreversibility). Given the presence of an output schema, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful explanations for most parameters (e.g., purge removes from replication/HA/backup/ACLs) beyond the schema's titles and types. Node and vmid are self-explanatory from context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete a container' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_vm, clone_container, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the precondition 'Must be stopped first unless force=True' but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the critical behavioral effect (no data deletion), which is good. However, it omits other details like permissions, reversibility, or side effects on dependent resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The main action and key exception are front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-param delete with an output schema, the description adequately covers the core intent and exception. It could mention prerequisites or safety checks, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the only source. 'The storage ID' adds basic clarity for the single parameter, but no format, source, or constraints beyond the schema type 'string'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete a storage pool configuration' and distinguishes it from data deletion with the parenthetical 'does not delete data on the backend'. This sets it apart from sibling tools like delete_storage_volume.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to remove pool config) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No mention of delete_storage_volume or update_storage for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, requires authentication). A brief mention of safety would improve transparency, but the simple read nature is somewhat obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 7 words, achieving maximum conciseness with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate. It could be slightly more complete by hinting at what the info includes (e.g., cluster fingerprint or join key), but it meets the minimum for a simple get tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters in the input schema. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since none exist. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'info needed to join a node to this cluster', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_cluster_config or get_cluster_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The purpose implies it's for join preparation, but no when-not-to-use or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds behavioral context by specifying returned metric categories and time range, but does not disclose permissions, side effects (likely none), or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, front-loaded with main purpose, followed by clear parameter descriptions. No superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity and presence of output schema, the description covers essential inputs and outputs. Could mention that data is read-only, but otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description explains each parameter's purpose (node, vmid, timeframe with examples). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves RRD statistics data for a container, listing specific metrics like CPU, memory, disk, and network over time. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_vm_rrddata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for monitoring container performance over time but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., get_vm_rrddata). No when-not or exclusion criteria provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'get' implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, safe, or idempotent. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus parameter descriptions. No redundant or irrelevant information. Front-loaded with the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (mentioned in context), the description adequately covers the scope by listing the categories of runtime status. Could mention required permissions or response format, but overall sufficient for a simple read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by briefly explaining 'node' and 'vmid' parameters. While succinct, it adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though lacks examples or valid values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it gets the current runtime status of a VM, listing specific components (state, CPU, memory, disk, network, uptime). Distinguishes well from sibling tools like get_vm_config or get_vm_pending.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for runtime status, but lacks when-not-to-use or comparison with similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not contradict missing annotations but lacks explicit behavioral details such as side effects, permissions required, or output format. As a simple list tool, the behavior is inferable but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema provided), the description is largely complete. It could briefly mention the return format, but the output schema covers that. Slight lack of completeness regarding what 'configured' means, but acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate given zero parameters. Baseline score of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('configured authentication realms/domains') with examples (PAM, PVE, LDAP, AD, OpenID), distinguishing it from sibling list tools and the singular 'get_auth_domain'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving all authentication domains but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_auth_domain' or other list tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation by listing aliases, but does not elaborate on what data is returned (e.g., full alias objects) or any permissions needed. It is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no extraneous information. It earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, list operation) and the presence of an output schema (indicated by Has output schema: true), the description is largely complete. It could briefly mention the output format (e.g., returns alias objects), but the output schema compensates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists cluster firewall aliases and specifies they are named IP addresses/ranges. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('firewall aliases'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_firewall_alias or delete_firewall_alias.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear purpose but does not offer any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other list or firewall tools. However, for a straightforward list operation, the context is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral context. It mentions key parameters like delete_original, which hints at destructive behavior, but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., VM must be stopped), permissions, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is clear and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args section is necessary due to low schema coverage, making it slightly longer but still efficient. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the two main operations and all parameters. However, it could mention when the operation is valid (e.g., VM state). Complete enough for most agents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is essential. It provides meaningful explanations for all 7 parameters, such as 'disk: Source disk name (e.g. 'scsi0')' and 'storage: Target storage ID'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Move a VM disk to different storage or attach to another VM,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like migrate_vm or resize_vm_disk, which handle different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies two distinct use cases (move to storage or attach to another VM) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like migrate_vm or move_container_volume. No exclusions or conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes that dry_run defaults to True for safety, indicating a safety feature. However, it does not disclose that the operation permanently deletes backups, potential authentication needs, or other side effects. Since no annotations exist, this is a moderate disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a header line and a bullet-like list of arguments. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, a destructive action, and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, all parameters, and includes a safety note. It does not detail return values, but the output schema exists. It is fairly complete for a backup pruning tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds explanations for each parameter, including an example for prune_backups and the safety default for dry_run. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though pattern details for prune_backups are missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool prunes (deletes) old backups from storage according to a retention policy. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_storage_volume or delete_backup_job.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for enforcing retention policies on backups but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., manual deletion via delete_storage_volume).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Analogizes to pulling power plug, indicating abruptness. No annotations, so description carries full burden; it accurately describes forceful stop but lacks detail on side effects (e.g., potential data loss) or state implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus a clean parameter list. Purpose and alternative are front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema exists, description doesn't need to detail return values. Covers purpose, usage, and parameters sufficiently for a simple action. Lacks error or task reference, but overall complete for scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No schema descriptions (0% coverage), so description adds minimal value for each parameter: node and vmid are obvious, timeout explained as 'Wait timeout in seconds' but default behavior unclear, skiplock adds permission context. Adequate but not detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Hard-stop a VM (like pulling the power plug)' which precisely defines the action. Explicitly distinguishes from shutdown_vm for graceful stop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives clear alternative ('Prefer shutdown_vm for graceful stop') and implies emergency use. Mentions root requirement for skiplock, but could be more explicit about when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the schema, such as the dry-run capability and the destructive options for handling vanished entries (remove users, clear properties, remove ACLs). However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., locking, auth disruptions) or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured as a parameter list. It is readable but slightly verbose with the parameter list. Every line adds value, but the docstring format could be more succinct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description explains the operation and parameters adequately. It could mention prerequisites or the return value (though covered by output schema). It is sufficiently complete for an experienced admin.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides clear meanings for all 5 parameters, including realms, dry_run, full, enable_new, and the comma-separated options for remove_vanished. This adds significant value beyond the schema titles and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool syncs users/groups from an external auth domain (LDAP/AD), using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_auth_domains or get_auth_domain, which are read-only.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring a configured realm or admin permissions, nor does it advise against use in certain scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavior. It explains add/remove with 'delete' flag and 'propagate' for child objects, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting, idempotency), authorization needs, or error scenarios.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a brief opening and a clear bullet list for parameters. It is efficient, though the initial line could be slightly more concise by omitting repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters and an output schema indicated, the description covers all parameter meanings and usage rules (add/remove, propagation). However, it lacks explanation of partial updates, conflict handling, or return value, which the output schema may partially address.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by detailing all 7 parameters with format, examples (path), defaults (users, groups, tokens empty; propagate true; delete false), and mandatory fields (path, roles).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Add or remove ACL entries (permission assignments)' which clearly identifies the tool's verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_acl (read-only) or create_role (role management).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_role, get_acl). The description implies usage context through parameter details but lacks when-not or exclusionary statements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states a read operation ('Get') but does not explicitly mention that it is safe, idempotent, or has no side effects. However, for a simple read, it is minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the description is fully complete. The presence of an output schema obviates the need to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no properties, so schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for no parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'Ceph global flags' with examples (noout, noscrub). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_ceph_flags.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving flags but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives. The context of sibling tools like set_ceph_flags is present but not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose potential errors, authentication needs, or side effects. For a simple status query, this is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads key information. No unnecessary words are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (as per context), the description lists the main categories of status returned (health, monitors, OSDs, PGs), which is sufficiently complete for a simple get operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no further parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Ceph cluster status', listing specific components (health, monitors, OSDs, PGs). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_ceph_status_node' by specifying cluster-level scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_ceph_status_node'. Usage is implied by the name and context, but no when-not or alternative conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the effect of purge and destroy_unreferenced_disks parameters, adding transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that deletion is irreversible or describe the full scope of what is removed (e.g., VM config, disks).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, starting with the main action and then listing parameters with short, clear explanations. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential action, precondition, and parameter behaviors. An output schema exists (though not detailed), so return values are covered. It lacks mention of default disk handling (beyond unreferenced) and irreversibility, but overall is adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the function description lists each parameter with a brief explanation. For 'purge' and 'destroy_unreferenced_disks', it provides specific effects beyond the parameter names. For 'node' and 'vmid', it gives minimal but adequate clarification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a VM', specifying the verb and resource. It also includes a critical precondition ('The VM must be stopped first'), which helps distinguish this tool from other delete operations among siblings (e.g., delete_container).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear precondition (VM must be stopped) that guides when to use the tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the resource name and context signals (sibling tools) are sufficient for differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Describes a read-only check; no side effects mentioned, but behavior is simple and implied. Adequate but not detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one line for purpose, then parameter listing. No wasted words, front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and valid inputs. Lacks return type details but output schema likely covers it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description explicitly lists and explains all three parameters, including valid values for 'feature'. Adds significant meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (check), resource (container), and specific features (snapshot, clone, copy). Differentiates from sibling get_container_* tools by focusing on feature availability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies use before actions like cloning or snapshotting. Does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, but the description accurately reflects a read-only list operation. It does not mention any side effects or special behaviors, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity. There is no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence that front-loads the key action and provides examples, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient for most use cases. It could add more detail about the output content, but the examples (SSH, HTTP) help ground the user's expectation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so the description need not add semantics. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the parameter space.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it lists firewall macros, which are predefined rule sets like SSH, HTTP. Distinct from sibling list tools (e.g., list_firewall_aliases, list_firewall_groups) by specifying 'predefined rule sets'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks comparisons or exclusion criteria for siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds some context by defining HA groups, but it does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or performance. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the core operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action 'List HA groups', no wasted words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple list tool with no parameters and output schema present, the description fully explains the purpose. It is complete for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds value by explaining the meaning of HA groups, which is beyond the schema. Baseline 4 for 0 params is exceeded by the explanatory context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it lists HA groups and provides context that HA groups define which nodes can run HA resources. Verb and resource are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like list_ha_resources or create_ha_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description indicates when to use (list HA groups) but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or alternatives. It implies usage for viewing existing groups, but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the grow-only constraint, which is important behavioral info. However, it does not disclose whether the VM must be stopped, if the operation is reversible, or other side effects, limiting transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise: a two-sentence overview followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (context says true), the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the core operation and the grow-only constraint. It could mention prerequisites like VM existence, but these are generally implied for a simple VM disk operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds significant value by explaining disk examples ('scsi0', 'virtio0') and size examples ('50G', '+10G'). This helps the agent understand the expected format beyond the schema's bare types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it resizes a VM disk, with a key constraint 'Can only grow, not shrink'. It also lists parameters with examples, differentiating it from sibling resize tools like 'resize_container_disk' and 'move_vm_disk'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage guideline: can only grow, not shrink. This tells the agent when to use the tool (to increase disk size) and when not to (to decrease). It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools, but the constraint is sufficient for basic usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses it is a read operation, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or additional behavioral traits. Annotations absent, but the description does not compensate significantly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and parameter format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameter format for a single-parameter get operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description provides format example for id parameter (GUEST-JOBNUM), adding critical meaning beyond the schema's type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'get' action on 'replication job configuration', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_replication_jobs, create_replication_job, and delete_replication_job.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for retrieving a specific job via id, but does not explicitly contrast with list_replication_jobs or state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The operation is a simple get (read-only). No annotations are provided, but the description implies no side effects. It does not mention permissions or errors, but for a get operation, the behavioral assumptions are clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence and a parameter format. Every word is necessary and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values are covered. The parameter is well explained. Missing error handling info (e.g., if user not found) but overall adequate for a simple get tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter. The description compensates by specifying the format 'user@realm' and providing an example 'admin@pam', adding significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get details for a specific user.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_users' (get all) and 'create_user' (create).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides the format for the userid parameter but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_users' or 'get_user_token'. The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation with no side effects, but does not disclose permissions, errors, or return format. For a simple check, this is adequate but not enhanced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence explaining purpose, followed by brief parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words, front-loaded, and each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple check tool with three parameters, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. Output schema exists (not shown) but is not needed for completeness here. No significant gaps for the intended use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by specifying that 'node' is the node name, 'vmid' is the VM ID, and 'feature' accepts specific values like 'snapshot', 'clone', 'copy'. This compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'check' and the resource 'feature available/supported for a VM', with concrete examples (snapshot, clone, copy). It effectively distinguishes from other get_* tools by specifying the VM feature context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking feature availability, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. The context makes it reasonably clear, but lacks explicit guidance for sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It implies a read-only listing operation, which is clear. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects or limitations beyond the basic listing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word serves a purpose with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It provides the essential purpose and an example, which is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters and the schema is an empty object, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'scheduled cluster jobs', with an example ('realm-sync, etc.'). It distinguishes itself from other list tools by being specific to scheduled jobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to list scheduled jobs) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It lacks exclusions or comparison to sibling tools like list_realm_sync_jobs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses key behavior: token value shown only once, parameter defaults (privsep=true, expire=0), and meanings (privsep enables privilege separation). However, it does not mention required permissions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-line summary followed by a clean bullet list of parameters. No redundant information, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
All 5 parameters are explained, and the return behavior (token shown once) is noted. An output schema exists, so not needing to detail returns is acceptable. The description is complete for this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: userid format, tokenid 'alphanumeric', comment description, privsep explanation, and expire as Unix epoch. Adds significant meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates a new API token for a user and that the token value is shown only once. It distinguishes from siblings like get_user_token, list_user_tokens, and delete_user_token by the action it performs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_user_token or list_user_tokens). Usage is implied from the purpose, but no guidance on when not to use or alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It accurately describes the read-only behavior and scope (full ACL, all permission assignments). No hidden side effects are present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose without any superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, no annotations, but an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose and return value, though it could hint at required permissions or scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly adds no param info, as none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the full ACL and shows all permission assignments. It uses specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full ACL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_acl' which writes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when needing to view all permission assignments. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context of sibling tools (e.g., update_acl) provides clear differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states the action is immediate and forceful, but lacks warnings about potential data loss or required permissions. Still, it is fairly transparent for a simple destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one line for the action and two for parameters, with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple destructive action, the description is nearly complete. It does not mention return value or error handling, but the presence of an output schema (though not shown) partially compensates. Could mention task status or confirmation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% because description only lists parameter names without additional explanation. However, the schema titles 'Node' and 'Vmid' are self-explanatory, so minimal extra value provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'stop' and resource 'container', and clarifies 'hard-stop (immediate, like power off)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like shutdown_container and reboot_container.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('hard-stop' for immediate shutdown) and implies alternatives when graceful shutdown is needed, based on the context of sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly warns 'WARNING: destroys all data', which is the key behavioral trait. No other behaviors disclosed, but for a simple initialization, this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus a two-line parameter list. No unnecessary words; every sentence is essential.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, 2 required parameters, and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and a critical warning. No gaps for an initialization tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add value. It explains 'node' as 'The node name' and 'disk' with an example '/dev/sdb', adding meaning beyond parameter names. Could provide more constraints like format or validation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Initialize a disk with GPT partition table', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools as the only one for initializing a disk partition table.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes a warning about data destruction, which implies when to use (when data can be lost) and when not to. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for use compared to other disk-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the core behavior (start VMs and containers) and parameter effects (force, vms list). However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., node availability) or detailed side effects beyond starting.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a brief args list. The main purpose is stated first, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers input parameters and basic behavior. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be detailed. However, it lacks context such as error conditions (e.g., node offline) or confirmation of boot order handling, making it slightly incomplete for a bulk operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear 'Args' section explaining each parameter: node (node name), force (force start if running), vms (comma-separated VMIDs, empty for all). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Start all VMs and containers on a node (respecting boot order).' It uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('all VMs and containers on a node'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like start_container, start_vm, and stopall_node.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning boot order and the ability to filter VMs or force start. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like bulk_start_guests, leaving some implicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'type' currently only supports 'local', and includes parameter defaults. However, it does not mention authorization requirements or side effects like job scheduling behavior. Given the absence of annotations, it is fairly transparent but could be more explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with a brief introductory sentence followed by a bullet list of parameters. Every line provides useful information without unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity (7 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all parameters with meaningful explanations. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does so effectively by specifying id format ('GUEST-JOBNUM'), target as 'target node', type restriction to 'local', schedule format ('systemd calendar'), and defaults for other parameters. This adds significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a storage replication job' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_backup_job' and 'delete_replication_job' by the unique resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides parameter details like id format and default schedule, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_backup_job'. The usage context is implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![proxmox-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GethosTheWalrus/proxmox-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GethosTheWalrus/proxmox-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![proxmox-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GethosTheWalrus/proxmox-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/GethosTheWalrus/proxmox-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/GethosTheWalrus/proxmox-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server