proxmox_guests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' signals a non-mutating read operation and the optional filters add useful behavior, but the description does not disclose default behavior when no filters are provided, authentication expectations, pagination, or response shape.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists filters compactly. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The operation is simple, the schema fully documents all parameters, and the description clearly states the resource and optional filters. It could be slightly richer about the default all-guests behavior and endpoint selection, but those are largely inferable from the schema and the list verb.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mostly restates 'node, status, or type' and adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Proxmox QEMU and LXC guests'), and it names the optional filtering dimensions (node, status, type). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_node, proxmox_tasks, and proxmox_status, which target different resources.

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

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

The description implies use for enumerating guests rather than nodes, tasks, or Docker containers, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when a filter should be applied. Usage context is present only implicitly through the resource name.

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