proxmox_script_command

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 explicitly discloses that the tool never fetches or runs the script and that the caller must review and run it on the Proxmox host. This is meaningful safety-relevant behavior, though it does not describe error cases or output format in depth.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the action and immediately follows with the critical non-execution guarantee. Every word contributes value, with no repetition of the name or schema.

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 tool with a single well-documented parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete: it states what is rendered, that it is not executed, and that the caller runs it on the Proxmox host. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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% and the slug parameter is already documented as 'Script slug from proxmox_script_list, such as docker.' The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond naming 'one Proxmox VE Community Script,' so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Render') and names the exact resource ('the pinned install command for one Proxmox VE Community Script'). It also distinguishes the tool from any execution behavior by stating it 'Never fetches or runs it,' making it clear this is a command-rendering tool, not a script runner.

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 provides clear context: this tool only renders a command and does not fetch or execute it, so an agent knows not to use it when execution is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives like proxmox_script_list, but the boundary with running commands is clearly implied.

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