proxmox_api_raw

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.