proxmox_guests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that all four filters are optional (i.e., an unfiltered call returns everything), which is useful, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or whether the call fans out across endpoints/clusters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and the filter scope trailing. No filler, no repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-required-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete. The only missing piece an agent might want is how the endpoint parameter resolves when omitted and whether the response carries guest type/node, but the complexity is low enough that this is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the qemu/lxc and running/stopped value hints. The description restates the same three filters and never mentions the fourth parameter (endpoint) or the 'optional when exactly one is configured' fallback behavior, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and a precise resource (Proxmox QEMU and LXC guests) plus the available filter dimensions. It is distinguishable from the mutation siblings (guest_start/shutdown/reboot) and from proxmox_node by resource, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'optionally filtered by node, status, or type' implies the retrieval use case, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over proxmox_node, proxmox_status, or proxmox_guest_* siblings, and no exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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