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

No annotations provided. The description lists actions but does not disclose side effects, state changes, async behavior, or required permissions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient for informed agent decisions.

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?

Very concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could better structure the parameter list inline. No unnecessary sentences, but missing details limit overall effectiveness.

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 simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core action list. However, it lacks explanation for node/vmid, and no guidance on action selection or preconditions, making it only minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning only for the 'action' parameter by listing valid values. The 'node' and 'vmid' parameters are left unexplained, relying solely on their names which may be ambiguous.

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 the tool runs lifecycle actions on a container and lists specific actions (start, stop, shutdown, reboot, suspend, resume). This distinguishes it from sibling tool proxmox_vm_action which targets VMs.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The list of actions implies usage for container lifecycle management, but lacks context on prerequisites, ordering, or when specific actions are appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the irreversible nature ('Permanently delete'), a precondition (container must be stopped), and the return type (task UPID). It lacks details on authentication, error handling, or consequences of non-compliance, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and precondition. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding.

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 simple deletion tool with an output schema (implied), the description covers the essential: action, precondition, and follow-up. It could mention error scenarios (e.g., container not stopped) or permissions, but given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, it is mostly complete.

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 does not elaborate on the parameters 'node' and 'vmid' beyond the schema titles. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only mentions 'container' implicitly tying to vmid. This provides minimal added meaning, leaving the agent to infer parameter roles from the tool name.

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 the tool's action: 'Permanently delete a container'. It specifies the resource (container) and verb (delete), distinguishing it from sibling tools like proxmox_delete_vm (for VMs) and proxmox_container_action (for other container actions).

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 a clear precondition: 'the container must be stopped first'. It also advises using proxmox_task_status to check the result, guiding the agent on follow-up. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, though the context of deletion is implicit.

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

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

No annotations, but description discloses permanent deletion, prerequisite, and asynchronous return (UPID). Does not mention permission requirements or error conditions, but sufficient for a deletion tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: action, precondition, return value, follow-up action.

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?

Covers core aspects: purpose, prerequisite, return type, next step. Could mention purging configuration or error states, but output schema likely covers return details.

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 coverage is 0% and description offers no additional meaning for 'node' or 'vmid'. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description should compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Permanently delete a VM'. Distinguishes from siblings like proxmox_delete_container and proxmox_vm_action by specifying VM and requiring it to be stopped.

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?

Provides explicit precondition (VM must be stopped) and post-action guidance (use proxmox_task_status). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses partial match support and the return fields (vmid, node, type). It implicitly signals a read-only operation without explicit side effect notes. Additional clarity on error behavior or authentication requirements would improve transparency, but the description is adequate.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the action and resource, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence contributes value.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it matches (partial), and what it returns. The presence of an output schema relieves the description from detailing return structure.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must add meaning. It does so by explaining that the name parameter supports partial matches, which is a critical usage detail not evident from the schema alone. This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the action (find), the resource (VM or container), the method (by name with partial match), and the output (vmid, node, type). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are all action-oriented, making its lookup purpose obvious.

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 explicitly positions the tool as useful before running admin actions, implying it is a prerequisite. While it does not elaborate on when not to use or alternative lookup methods, the context of sibling action tools provides sufficient guidance for typical use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions actions (reboot/shutdown) which imply mutations, but gives no details on destructive nature, prerequisites, or side effects. Essential behavioral traits are missing.

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 very short, which is concise, but it is under-specified. The two sentences do earn their place, but more structure (e.g., separating purpose from parameters) would improve clarity.

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 no annotations and an output schema that is not described, the description leaves many gaps: no return value explanation, no prerequisites, and no warnings about destructive actions. It is incomplete for a tool performing node-level operations.

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 adds the allowed values for 'action' (reboot, shutdown), compensating for the schema's lack of enums and zero coverage. However, it does not explain the 'node' parameter or provide additional context 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as 'Proxmox node' and lists specific actions (reboot, shutdown), distinguishing it from sibling tools for containers and VMs. However, the verb 'Run an action' is generic.

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, or when to choose reboot vs shutdown. The description implicitly suggests node-level use via the name, but lacks explicit usage context.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or its computational cost. While likely safe, these gaps reduce transparency.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value. No redundancy or wasted text.

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 description covers what the tool returns (nodes, VMs, etc.). An output schema exists to detail return format. Missing a note about read-only nature, but overall sufficient for a simple status tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline score of 4 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 clearly states the tool returns the current state of the Proxmox cluster, listing specific resource types (nodes, VMs, containers, storage). It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('Proxmox cluster state'), distinguishing it from sibling action tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives is provided. However, the context of sibling tools (all action-oriented) implies this is the read-only status tool, so usage is somewhat clear by contrast.

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

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

No annotations present. The description implies a read operation but does not specify whether the call blocks until completion, if it is idempotent, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, concise, front-loaded with key information. No extraneous words.

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?

Simple tool with output schema. Description covers purpose and identifier but lacks behavioral context (e.g., polling, error states) and does not connect to sibling tools that generate tasks.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'by its UPID' but does not explain the 'node' parameter or provide formats/examples. Adds little beyond the parameter names.

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 the verb 'Check', the resource 'status of a running or completed Proxmox task', and the method 'by its UPID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions on containers or VMs.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., proxmox_find). No mention of when not to use it or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations provided, and description lacks behavioral details like sync/async behavior, state transitions, error handling, or required permissions. Only lists possible actions.

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?

Extremely concise with front-loaded purpose and action list. Every sentence is necessary.

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 3 required parameters and no annotations, the description is too minimal. Missing prerequisites, operation specifics, and return behavior. Output schema exists but not referenced.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description adds enumeration for action parameter but provides no additional meaning for node and vmid beyond their titles.

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?

Clearly states 'Run a lifecycle action on a VM' with specific action enumeration, distinguishing it from sibling 'proxmox_container_action' for containers.

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?

Implied usage for VM lifecycle actions, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. The distinction from container sibling is left to the tool name.

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