pve_describe_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool returns (the full spec including response schema and permissions) and clearly frames it as a read/preparatory operation preceding pve_call_endpoint. The read-only nature is implied rather than stated explicitly, and rate limits or other constraints aren't mentioned, but the return content is well-specified.

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, information-dense sentence followed by a short directive. It front-loads the enumerated contents of the spec and ends with clear usage guidance. Slightly long but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 documented parameter, a clear read-only purpose, absence of an output schema, and precise workflow positioning relative to pve_call_endpoint, the description covers what an agent needs. It doesn't explain the return format in detail, but given the tool's purpose is to reveal spec details, the description's enumeration of what's returned is adequate. No output schema exists, so the description partially serves that role.

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 there is only one parameter, operation_id. The schema provides a description with an example value and a pointer to list_endpoints for discovery. The tool description adds no further param semantics beyond the schema. With a single well-documented param, this is roughly at baseline despite the 0% coverage metric.

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 specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('full spec for one Proxmox VE endpoint'), enumerating exactly what the spec contains (method, path, params, response schema, permissions, sample). It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Call before pve_call_endpoint', positioning it as a companion to pve_call_endpoint and differentiating from pve_list_endpoints.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Call before pve_call_endpoint so you send exactly the right params.' This gives clear context for invocation and implies the alternative (calling directly without the spec look-up). It effectively communicates the tool's role in the workflow relative to its sibling.

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