pdm_list_endpoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does list what fields are returned and notes filtering behaviors, plus the limit default of 200 and advice to narrow for big surfaces. However, it doesn't describe pagination behavior, error cases, or whether the output might be truncated. Still, the core behavior (read-only discovery listing) is clearly implied by naming it a discovery 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 concise sentences with zero filler. Front-loads the primary purpose, enumerates returned fields and filter dimensions compactly, and closes with a terse usage chain. Every clause earns its place.

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?

This is a discovery/listing tool with useful guidance on filters and chaining to describe/call. No output schema exists, but the returned field set is enumerated in the description, partially compensating. Slight gap: it doesn't cover edge behaviors like empty results or combined filter semantics, but for a list tool scaffolded by sibling describe/call tools, it's substantially 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It names each filter dimension (category, resource, method, reads/writes, search) corresponding to the params, adding functional context like case-insensitive substring search and resource-as-first-path-segment. This adds meaningful value beyond the bare schema, though the description doesn't enumerate params verbatim.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') plus resource ('Proxmox Datacenter Manager API endpoints') and details what's returned (operationId, method, path, category, description, read/write, destructive). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly referring to pdm_describe_endpoint and pdm_call_endpoint as downstream steps, clearly separating it from pve_* counterparts.

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 guidance: 'Use this to discover an endpoint, then pdm_describe_endpoint for its parameters and pdm_call_endpoint to execute it.' This chains the tool within a workflow and names alternatives. The filter options (category, resource, method, reads/writes, search) signal when narrowing is appropriate.

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