get_container_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but no additional context is given about required permissions, side effects, error behavior, or rate limits. The description fails to disclose anything 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.

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise and efficient, but the brevity omits essential context, which is a trade-off. For the dimension of conciseness, it earns a solid score for structure.

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 absence of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to know what the response will look like or how to correctly invoke the tool. The description is too sparse for a tool that has two required parameters and no additional structured context.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'node' and 'vmid' parameters. While the names are somewhat standard in Proxmox contexts, the description offers no clarification of what these values represent, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the tool name and sibling tools.

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 'Fetch configuration settings of an LXC container' clearly states the verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like get_vm_config (for VMs) and get_container_status (status vs configuration). This 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.

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 exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools. The context is only implied by the tool's name and the phrase 'LXC container.'

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