Discover Proxmox guests on a node

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is provided by structured data. The description adds value by disclosing the authentication mechanism (reuses SSH host's stored credentials) and the underlying command (pvesh), which explains how the discovery works. It is silent on potential side effects (e.g., caching results), which readOnlyHint=false hints at, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences with the useful information (mechanism, no API token requirement, output purpose) arriving immediately. The opening sentence is a near-verbatim restatement of the title and adds little, but the overall description is tight and front-loaded with actionable content, so the redundancy is a minor blemish rather than a real cost.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the caller gets back. It does say guests are 'returned ready to be imported as Termix hosts,' giving a sense of the output purpose, but it does not describe the return shape, volume, or any failure/permission limitations. For a discovery tool with a single, well-scoped parameter this is adequate but not rich.

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 100% — hostId is already described as 'ID of the SSH host that is a Proxmox node.' The description reinforces this semantic by clarifying the host must be a Proxmox node and that its stored credentials will be used. It adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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?

States a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('Proxmox guests on a node') and goes beyond the title by specifying the mechanism (runs pvesh, enumerates VMs and LXC containers across the cluster). It clearly distinguishes itself from the proxmox sibling tools, which are all stats-collection/retrieval oriented (get_cached_proxmox_node_stats, start/stop_proxmox_stats_collection), by framing the output as guests 'ready to be imported as Termix hosts.'

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 conveys clear context on prerequisites (must reference an existing SSH host with stored credentials, and 'No separate Proxmox API token is required' clarifies when this tool is appropriate). However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when-not-to-use it versus the stats siblings. Usage is implied rather than directly routed.

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