Proxmox MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
The tools are highly specific and well-differentiated by resource type (VM, container, node, storage, etc.) and action (create, get, list, update, delete). Overlap is minimal, with clear distinctions like pve_get_vm_config vs pve_get_vm_status, and pve_list_vms vs pve_list_containers. The sheer number of tools might cause some confusion, but each serves a distinct purpose within the Proxmox domain.
Naming Consistency5/5
Naming is exceptionally consistent throughout the entire set. Every tool follows the pattern pve_<action>_<resource> or pve_<action>_<resource>_<subresource>, using snake_case uniformly. Verbs like create, get, list, update, delete are applied predictably across resources, making the toolset highly readable and systematic.
Tool Count2/5
With 166 tools, the count is excessive for an MCP server, far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 tools. While Proxmox is a complex system, this many tools will overwhelm agents, increase cognitive load, and likely lead to misselection or inefficiency. The scope feels more like a direct API mapping than a curated tool surface.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage of the Proxmox VE domain, including full CRUD operations for VMs, containers, storage, users, groups, firewall rules, backups, replication, HA, and node management. It supports lifecycle actions (start, stop, migrate, snapshot) and administrative tasks (network, certificates, services), leaving no obvious gaps for core workflows.
Average 2.6/5 across 166 of 166 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't mention whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether it affects container availability during snapshot creation, what happens if a snapshot with the same name exists, or what the expected outcome looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this description suffers from severe under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single phrase doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful guidance or context. True conciseness balances brevity with completeness, which this description fails to achieve.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool that creates snapshots with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no behavioral context, no usage guidance, no error handling information, and no indication of what the tool returns. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly based solely on this description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create container snapshot' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_create_container_snapshot' without adding meaningful context. While it identifies the verb ('create') and resource ('container snapshot'), it lacks specificity about what this operation entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_create_vm_snapshot' or 'pve_list_container_snapshots'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to related tools like 'pve_rollback_container_snapshot' or 'pve_delete_container_snapshot'. The agent receives no help in determining when this specific snapshot creation tool should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate that this is a write/mutation operation, doesn't mention permissions required, doesn't warn about potential system impact, and provides no information about what happens after creation (e.g., whether network changes take effect immediately or require a restart).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely concise at just three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load important information and fails to provide any meaningful context for a complex tool with 12 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex network creation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'node network interface' is in the Proxmox VE context, doesn't provide usage examples or constraints, and offers no information about the operation's behavior or results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create network interface' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_create_node_network'. It lacks specificity about what resource is being created (a network interface on a Proxmox VE node) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_update_node_network' or 'pve_delete_node_network'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate compared to sibling tools like 'pve_update_node_network' or 'pve_apply_node_network', or any context about network configuration in Proxmox VE.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate that this is a write operation (creating storage), potential side effects (e.g., system configuration changes), authentication requirements, or any constraints like rate limits. The description is too minimal to provide any behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with only two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to front-load essential details, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema and tool name alone. Every sentence should earn its place, but this description lacks substantive content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (19 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose in context, behavioral implications, or usage scenarios. For a creation tool with many parameters, the description should provide more guidance to complement the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all 19 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as explaining dependencies between parameters (e.g., 'path' is needed for 'dir' type) or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create new storage' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'pve_create_storage' without adding specificity. It lacks details about what 'storage' means in this context (e.g., Proxmox storage configuration for VMs/containers) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like pve_update_storage or pve_list_storage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), when it's appropriate (e.g., setting up new storage for VMs), or refer to related tools like pve_update_storage for modifications or pve_delete_storage for removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete HA resource' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on dependent services), or provides confirmation feedback. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words, but this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. It lacks necessary context and structure, failing to front-load critical information. While not verbose, it's too sparse to be helpful, earning a low score for inadequate content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or provide any completeness for a mutation tool. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'sid' documented as 'HA resource ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this schema information—it doesn't explain how to obtain the ID, format requirements, or examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete HA resource' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_delete_ha_resource'. While it clarifies the verb 'delete' and resource 'HA resource', it doesn't specify what an HA resource is (High Availability resource in Proxmox VE context) or distinguish it from similar deletion tools like pve_delete_ha_group. The purpose is vague beyond the obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to identify the resource ID first), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or relationships to sibling tools like pve_list_ha_resources or pve_delete_ha_group. There's no context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get container status') without any details on permissions required, rate limits, output format, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to understand the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks front-loaded critical information and doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name. True conciseness balances brevity with completeness, which this fails to achieve.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the contextual information is severely inadequate. The description doesn't explain what 'status' entails, how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the simple parameter schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('node' and 'vmid') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, such as examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get container status' restates the tool name 'pve_get_container_status' almost verbatim, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'container status', but lacks specificity about what status information is retrieved (e.g., running state, resource usage, uptime) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'pve_get_container_config' or 'pve_get_vm_status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'pve_list_containers', 'pve_get_vm_status'), there's no indication of when this specific status retrieval is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'List node tasks' gives no information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior, output format, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. This leaves the agent with critical gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely concise with just three words, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful context that would help an agent, making it inefficient despite its short length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'tasks' are, how results are structured, what permissions are needed, or when to use filtering parameters. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 8 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters, such as explaining what 'node' refers to or how filtering works. However, with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List node tasks' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_list_node_tasks'. While it indicates a listing action, it lacks specificity about what 'tasks' are (e.g., background jobs, operations) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_cluster_tasks' or 'pve_get_node_task_status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'pve_cluster_tasks' for cluster-wide tasks or 'pve_get_node_task_status' for individual task details, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for filtering tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set cluster options' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified options. This leaves the agent with critical gaps for a configuration tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It fails to provide necessary context about what 'cluster options' encompasses or why this tool exists. Conciseness should not come at the expense of basic utility - this description is too brief to be helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what cluster options are, what the tool returns, or behavioral considerations. The agent would need to infer too much from the minimal description and schema alone, especially for a write operation that could have significant system impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., 'keyboard' as 'Default keyboard layout'). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set cluster options' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_cluster_set_options'. It provides a verb ('Set') and resource ('cluster options'), but lacks specificity about what cluster options are being set or how this differs from sibling tools like 'pve_cluster_options' or 'pve_set_cluster_firewall_options'. The purpose is stated but not clearly distinguished from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'pve_cluster_options' (likely for reading) and 'pve_set_cluster_firewall_options' (for firewall-specific settings), the agent receives no help in selecting this tool for general cluster configuration updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Get task log' implies a read-only operation but doesn't confirm safety, specify output format (e.g., text lines, JSON), mention pagination behavior (hinted by 'start' and 'limit' parameters), or discuss error conditions (e.g., invalid UPID). This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description 'Get task log' is overly concise to the point of under-specification. It consists of three words with no structure or front-loading of key information. While brief, it fails to convey necessary details, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'task log' entails in this context (e.g., execution logs from Proxmox VE), how results are returned, or any behavioral nuances. The schema covers parameters well, but the description lacks essential context for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (node name, task UPID, start line, max lines). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining UPID format or typical usage patterns. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get task log' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_get_node_task_log'. While it indicates a retrieval action ('Get'), it lacks specificity about what kind of task log (e.g., from Proxmox VE node tasks) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_node_journal' or 'pve_cluster_tasks' that might also retrieve logs or task information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a node and task UPID), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'pve_get_node_task_status' or 'pve_list_node_tasks', leaving the agent with no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'Read cluster log' doesn't indicate whether this is a real-time stream or historical data, whether it requires special permissions, what format the log entries come in, whether there are rate limits, or what happens when the 'max' parameter is omitted. For a logging tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. While it's arguably too brief for adequate functionality explanation, from a pure conciseness perspective, it contains zero wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, even if more words would be beneficial for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a logging tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. The agent needs to understand what kind of data this returns, in what format, for what time period, with what permissions required, and how it differs from other logging tools. The current description provides none of this necessary context for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'max' clearly documented as 'Maximum entries to return'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Read cluster log' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_cluster_log'. It specifies the verb 'Read' and resource 'cluster log', but doesn't provide any meaningful elaboration about what a cluster log contains, its purpose, or how it differs from other logging tools like 'pve_get_node_journal' or 'pve_get_node_syslog' in the sibling list. The description lacks specificity about what kind of information the cluster log provides.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple related logging tools in the sibling list (pve_get_node_journal, pve_get_node_syslog, pve_get_node_task_log, pve_get_container_status, pve_get_vm_status), but the description offers no context about when this specific cluster log tool is appropriate versus those other options. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Convert VM to template' implies a destructive or transformative operation, but provides no information about whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether the VM becomes unusable after conversion, or what happens to running instances. For a tool that likely permanently alters VM state, this lack of behavioral context is critically inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and doesn't contain any unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the description itself is structurally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that performs a potentially destructive VM transformation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what 'converting to template' means operationally, what the implications are, what permissions are required, or what the result looks like. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Convert VM to template' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('Convert') and resource ('VM to template'), but provides no additional context about what this operation entails or how it differs from similar operations. Compared to sibling tools like 'pve_clone_vm' or 'pve_create_vm_snapshot', there's no differentiation in purpose or scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparisons to related tools like 'pve_convert_container_to_template' or 'pve_create_vm_snapshot'. The agent receives no help in determining appropriate use cases for this conversion operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the action 'Create HA resource'. It fails to mention critical traits such as whether this is a mutating operation, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., impact on cluster state), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly concise to the point of under-specification, consisting of only three words. While brief, it lacks necessary detail for a tool with six parameters and no annotations, failing to provide value beyond the tool name. This brevity does not earn its place as a helpful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutating operation with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not address what an HA resource is, how it integrates with the system, expected outcomes, or error handling. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide the broader context needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented in the schema (e.g., 'sid' as HA resource ID, 'state' with enum values). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors. Since the schema provides full coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create HA resource' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It lacks specificity about what an 'HA resource' entails (e.g., a high-availability configuration for VMs or containers) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_create_ha_group' or 'pve_update_ha_resource', leaving the purpose vague beyond the basic action implied by the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing HA groups), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'pve_update_ha_resource' or 'pve_delete_ha_resource', leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create replication job' implies a write operation but doesn't specify whether this is destructive, requires special permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. It lacks critical behavioral context needed for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with only three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide meaningful information that would help an agent understand or use the tool properly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what replication means in this system, what resources are affected, or what the expected outcome is, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create replication job' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the verb 'Create' and resource 'replication job' but fails to explain what a replication job does in this context or distinguish it from similar tools like 'pve_create_backup_job' or 'pve_create_vm_snapshot'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it differs from other creation tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Resize container disk' implies a destructive write operation that modifies disk allocation, but it fails to mention critical details: whether the container needs to be stopped, if the operation is reversible, potential data loss risks, required permissions, or rate limits. This omission is significant for a tool that likely alters system state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary verbiage. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it lacks essential details. Every word ('Resize', 'container', 'disk') is relevant to the tool's core function, so it earns full marks for brevity and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a disk-resizing operation, the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, prerequisites), usage context, or result expectations. For a tool with 5 parameters and potential system impact, this minimal description fails to provide adequate guidance for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters (node, vmid, disk, size, digest) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining disk naming conventions (e.g., 'rootfs' for root filesystem) or size format examples beyond '+10G'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Resize container disk' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_resize_container_disk' without adding meaningful clarification. While it does specify the verb ('resize') and resource ('container disk'), it lacks specificity about what 'resize' entails (e.g., increasing or decreasing disk size) and doesn't differentiate it from sibling tools like 'pve_resize_vm_disk', which performs a similar operation on VMs instead of containers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., container must be stopped), exclusions (e.g., cannot resize certain disk types), or related tools like 'pve_resize_vm_disk' for VMs. This leaves the agent with no context for making an informed choice among sibling operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if deletion is permanent, requires permissions, affects dependent resources, or has side effects, leaving critical gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two words, front-loading the key action. There is no wasted text, though this brevity contributes to under-specification rather than efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter 'group' documented as 'HA group ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing. Baseline score of 3 applies since the schema adequately covers the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete HA group' restates the tool name 'pve_delete_ha_group' with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'Delete' and resource 'HA group', but lacks detail on what an HA group is or the scope of deletion, failing to distinguish from siblings like 'pve_delete_ha_resource'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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, prerequisites, or consequences. Sibling tools include 'pve_delete_ha_resource' and 'pve_list_ha_groups', but the description offers no comparison or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., stopping active replications), or provides confirmation feedback. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Delete replication job') but borders on under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it uses only three words, it fails to provide necessary context that would help an agent use the tool correctly. The structure is front-loaded but incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens upon deletion, potential errors, or return values. Given the complexity of a deletion operation in a system like Proxmox VE, more context about consequences and behavior is needed for the agent to use this tool appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Replication job ID'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete replication job' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Delete' and resource 'replication job', but doesn't distinguish from sibling deletion tools like pve_delete_backup_job or pve_delete_vm, nor does it clarify what a replication job entails in this context. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks specificity and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing replication job ID), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like pve_get_replication_job or pve_list_replication_jobs. The description offers no context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a user' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of required permissions, whether deletion is immediate or queued, what happens to associated resources (VMs, containers, etc.), or error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words, which could be considered appropriately sized for such a simple statement. However, given the tool's destructive nature and the complete lack of behavioral context, this brevity borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'delete' means operationally, what the consequences are, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns. The agent has no way to understand the behavioral implications of invoking this tool beyond the basic fact that it deletes users.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'userid' clearly documented as 'User ID (format: user@realm)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a user' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (user), which is specific enough to understand the basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'pve_delete_group' or 'pve_delete_role' - all follow the same 'delete X' pattern without indicating what makes user deletion unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like checking if the user exists first), consequences (what happens to the user's resources), or when NOT to use it. Given the destructive nature of deletion, this is a critical omission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if it requires specific permissions, returns structured data, or has side effects like caching. The lack of details on output format or error handling makes it insufficient for a tool with potential complexity in firewall configurations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, earning points for brevity. However, it is under-specified and lacks front-loading of critical details, such as the tool's scope or output nature. While concise, it fails to provide necessary context, making it less effective overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of firewall options and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'options' includes (e.g., settings, rules, status) or the return format, leaving gaps for the agent to infer behavior. For a tool that likely returns configuration data, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting 'node' and 'vmid' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter relationships or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get container firewall options' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'container firewall options', but lacks detail on what 'options' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like pve_get_vm_firewall_options or pve_list_container_firewall_rules, leaving the purpose vague and undifferentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to choose this over pve_get_vm_firewall_options for virtual machines or pve_list_container_firewall_rules for listing rules. This absence leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 only states the action without any details on output format, permissions required, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that likely interacts with system certificates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It front-loads the core action ('List') and resource ('node certificates'), making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured certificate data. It fails to explain what 'certificates' entail (e.g., types, fields) or behavioral aspects, leaving significant uncertainty for an agent trying to use it effectively in a complex system like Proxmox VE.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'node' clearly documented as 'Node name'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, but the schema adequately covers the parameter, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List node certificates' restates the tool name 'pve_list_node_certificates' almost verbatim, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'node certificates', but doesn't clarify what 'node certificates' are or how this differs from other certificate-related tools like 'pve_order_node_certificate' or 'pve_renew_node_certificate' among the siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. With many sibling tools for listing various resources (e.g., 'pve_list_nodes', 'pve_list_node_networks'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparisons to help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Reload a service' is vague—it doesn't specify whether this is a safe operation, if it requires administrative permissions, potential side effects (e.g., service downtime, configuration reload), or what happens on failure. The description fails to add any meaningful context beyond the basic action, leaving critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded and to the point, making it easy to parse quickly. While this brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions, it excels in conciseness by avoiding unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a service reload operation likely involving system-level changes), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, it fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use. The agent lacks information on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or how this tool differs from similar siblings, making the description inadequate for the tool's likely impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('node' and 'service'). The description adds no additional semantic information about these parameters, such as valid service names or node constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter details without needing extra explanation in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reload a service' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_node_service_reload' without adding meaningful context. It specifies a verb ('reload') and resource ('service'), but lacks specificity about what 'reload' entails (e.g., restarting, reconfiguring) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'pve_node_service_restart', 'pve_node_service_start', or 'pve_node_service_stop', leaving the agent unclear on the exact action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific node or service state), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'pve_node_service_restart', which could lead to misuse. Without any usage context, the agent lacks direction on appropriate scenarios for invoking this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update HA resource' implies a mutation operation but does not specify permissions required, whether changes are destructive or reversible, rate limits, or error handling. It lacks critical context for safe and effective use, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, but this brevity leads to under-specification rather than efficiency. It is front-loaded but fails to provide necessary context, making it inadequate despite its short length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of updating HA resources with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects, return values, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or usage examples. This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update HA resource' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'pve_update_ha_resource' without adding specificity. It mentions the resource type (HA) but lacks details on what aspects are updated or how it differs from sibling tools like 'pve_update_ha_group' or 'pve_create_ha_resource'. This provides minimal guidance beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate it from related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'pve_update_ha_group' or 'pve_get_ha_resource'). This leaves the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get cluster options' implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what kind of data is returned, whether there are any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation type.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Get cluster options') which could be seen as efficient, but it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It's front-loaded with the core operation, but doesn't provide enough context to be genuinely helpful. The single sentence structure is simple but lacks necessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, this is incomplete. The description doesn't explain what 'cluster options' are, what format they're returned in, or how this differs from other cluster-related tools. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context about what this tool actually retrieves.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input requirements. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't attempt to. Given the zero-parameter nature, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there's no parameter documentation burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get cluster options' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_cluster_options'. It provides a verb ('Get') and resource ('cluster options'), but doesn't specify what 'cluster options' actually are or what kind of information is retrieved. Compared to siblings like 'pve_cluster_status' or 'pve_cluster_resources', it doesn't clearly differentiate what makes this tool unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several sibling tools with 'cluster' in their names (pve_cluster_firewall_options, pve_cluster_log, pve_cluster_nextid, pve_cluster_resources, pve_cluster_set_options, pve_cluster_status, pve_cluster_tasks), but the description doesn't explain how this tool differs from those or when it should be selected over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create HA group' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of permissions required, whether this affects running services, what happens on failure, or what the expected outcome is. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words, with no wasted language. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded but lacks the substance needed for proper tool understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what HA groups are, when they're used, what the creation process entails, or what happens after creation. The agent would need to infer everything from the parameter names and schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create HA group' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'Create' and resource 'HA group', but doesn't explain what an HA group is or what creation entails. Compared to siblings like pve_create_container or pve_create_vm, it lacks differentiation beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when HA groups are needed, or how this relates to other HA tools like pve_create_ha_resource or pve_list_ha_groups. The agent receives zero contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this deletion is permanent, whether it affects the container's state, what permissions are required, or what happens if the snapshot is in use. The description mentions nothing about error conditions, rate limits, or return values. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. There's no wasted language, but it fails to provide necessary context. It's structured as a simple verb-noun phrase without any explanatory clauses.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there are confirmation prompts, what the force parameter actually does, or how this tool differs from similar deletion tools. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context beyond the bare schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already documented in the schema properties. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete container snapshot' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'pve_delete_vm_snapshot' or explain what a 'container snapshot' is in this context. While the verb 'delete' is clear, the description lacks the detail needed to understand the resource being operated on beyond what's obvious from the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing snapshot), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'pve_delete_vm_snapshot' or 'pve_rollback_container_snapshot'. The agent receives zero contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify if this requires specific permissions, whether it returns sensitive data, or if there are rate limits. It mentions nothing about error conditions (e.g., invalid VM ID) or output format, leaving the agent with minimal context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it lacks necessary detail for effective tool use, slightly reducing its utility despite the brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of VM configuration retrieval (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what configuration data is returned, how to interpret it, or any behavioral nuances. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly in a Proxmox VE context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters (node, vmid, current, snapshot). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'current' interacts with 'snapshot' or typical values for 'node'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get VM configuration' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_get_vm_config'. While it indicates a read operation on VM configuration, it lacks specificity about what configuration is retrieved (e.g., hardware settings, network config, or all details) and doesn't distinguish it from similar siblings like 'pve_get_container_config' or 'pve_get_vm_status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must exist), differentiate from other 'get' tools (e.g., 'pve_get_vm_status' for runtime state vs. config), or specify use cases like auditing or modification planning.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'List HA groups' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, output format, pagination, or whether it lists all groups or requires filtering. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves critical behavior unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('List HA groups') but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it avoids waste, it fails to provide necessary context that would help an agent use the tool effectively. Conciseness without substance doesn't earn high marks.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what HA groups are, what data is returned, or how this fits into the broader HA management context. For a list operation in a complex system like Proxmox VE, more context is needed despite the minimal structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description doesn't add parameter semantics but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List HA groups' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'pve_list_ha_groups' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'HA groups' but lacks specificity about what HA groups are or what information is listed. It doesn't distinguish from sibling list tools like 'pve_list_ha_resources' or 'pve_list_groups'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison to sibling tools like 'pve_get_ha_group' (for individual groups) or 'pve_ha_status' (for overall HA status). The agent receives no usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List storage content' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, what the output format is (e.g., list of items with metadata), or any rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description 'List storage content' is extremely concise with only three words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it lacks necessary detail for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema. It earns a 4 for brevity but loses points for not providing enough context in its minimal structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'storage content' entails, how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Node name', 'Storage ID', 'Filter by content type', 'Filter by VMID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'content type' values might be or how filtering works. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing extra description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List storage content' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_list_node_storage_content'. While it indicates a listing operation, it lacks specificity about what 'storage content' means (e.g., files, volumes, backups) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pve_list_storage' or 'pve_list_node_storage'. The verb 'List' is clear, but the resource 'storage content' is vague without context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required node and storage parameters), use cases, or how it differs from similar tools like 'pve_list_storage' (which might list storage resources rather than content). There's no explicit or implied context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It implies a mutation ('Set') but does not disclose permissions needed, side effects, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies cluster-wide firewall settings, risking misuse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it is overly terse, sacrificing clarity for brevity, which limits its helpfulness despite being structurally sound.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like required permissions, impact on cluster operations, or error conditions, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no semantic context beyond the schema, such as default behaviors or interactions between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation sufficiently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set cluster firewall options' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'Set' and resource 'cluster firewall options', but lacks detail on what 'options' entails or how it differs from siblings like 'pve_set_container_firewall_options' or 'pve_set_vm_firewall_options', leaving purpose vague and undifferentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., cluster-level vs. node/VM-level), or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update role configuration' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a tool that modifies system roles with 3 parameters, this is inadequate behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than optimal conciseness, the text itself is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It could be more helpful with additional context, but as written, it's structurally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a role modification tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'role configuration' entails, what privileges can be set, how the update affects existing configurations, or what happens upon success/failure. The agent lacks necessary context to use this tool effectively despite the good schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 3 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update role configuration' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_update_role'. It provides the verb 'update' and resource 'role configuration', but lacks specificity about what aspects of role configuration are updated (privileges, permissions, etc.) and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'pve_create_role' or 'pve_delete_role'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no indications about prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'pve_create_role' or 'pve_get_role'. The agent receives no usage instructions beyond the minimal description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update VM configuration' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether changes are immediate or pending, if the VM needs to be stopped, what happens on failure, or rate limits. For a complex mutation tool with 19 parameters, this is critically insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. While this represents severe under-specification for such a complex tool, from a pure conciseness perspective it's front-loaded with zero wasted words. Every word ('Update', 'VM', 'configuration') contributes to the core message, albeit minimally.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 19 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' encompasses, behavioral implications, success/failure responses, or usage context. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly despite the comprehensive schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 19 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the generic 'configuration' hint. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., 'delete' vs. 'revert'), parameter constraints, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update VM configuration' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_update_vm_config'. It provides a generic verb ('Update') and resource ('VM configuration') but lacks specificity about what aspects of VM configuration can be modified or how this differs from sibling tools like 'pve_update_container_config' or 'pve_get_vm_config'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the VM to be stopped for certain changes), distinguish it from similar tools (e.g., 'pve_update_container_config' for containers vs. VMs), or indicate when not to use it (e.g., for read-only operations).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create resource pool' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether this is destructive to existing resources, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words. While it's under-specified for a mutation tool, it contains zero wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. Every word ('Create', 'resource', 'pool') contributes directly to the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a resource pool is, when it should be created, what permissions are needed, what the expected outcome is, or how it relates to other Proxmox VE resources. The description fails to provide the necessary context for an agent to understand and use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (poolid, comment) having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create resource pool' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'pve_create_pool'. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'resource pool', but provides no additional detail about what a resource pool is or what this creation entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'create' tools in the sibling list like pve_create_container or pve_create_vm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many other creation tools in the sibling list (pve_create_container, pve_create_vm, pve_create_user, etc.), but the description offers no context about when a resource pool is needed versus other resources. No prerequisites, constraints, or use cases are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new virtual machine' implies a write operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether the VM starts automatically (though 'start' parameter exists), resource allocation limits, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a complex mutation tool with 29 parameters, this is critically inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool name that already indicates the action ('create_vm'), though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's high complexity (29 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide the necessary context for safe and effective use of this significant system operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all 29 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the generic 'create' action. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new virtual machine' clearly states the action (create) and resource (virtual machine), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other VM-related creation tools like pve_create_container or pve_clone_vm, which are also in the sibling list. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for creating VMs (e.g., pve_clone_vm, pve_create_container) and related operations (e.g., pve_start_vm, pve_update_vm_config), but the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent with no usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether this operation is idempotent, potential side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a 13-parameter mutation tool affecting system security, this represents a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of just three words that directly state the tool's function without any unnecessary elaboration. While it's severely lacking in detail, it's maximally concise and front-loaded with the essential action. Every word earns its place, even though more words would be beneficial.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex firewall rule creation tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what a successful creation returns, what validation occurs, how rules interact with existing configurations, or any system-specific constraints. The agent would need to guess about many critical aspects of tool behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 13 parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create VM firewall rule' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with minimal additional information. While it identifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('VM firewall rule'), it doesn't specify what constitutes a firewall rule in this context or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'pve_create_cluster_firewall_rule' or 'pve_set_vm_firewall_options'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this specific VM firewall rule creation is appropriate versus cluster-level rules, or any context about typical use cases. The agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'Get container configuration', implying a read-only operation but without confirming safety, permissions, or output format. It lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or whether it returns current or historical data, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single phrase, 'Get container configuration', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be overly brief for clarity, it scores high on conciseness as every word directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'container configuration' includes, how the output is structured, or behavioral aspects like idempotency. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively, but it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters like 'current' and 'snapshot'. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get container configuration' restates the tool name 'pve_get_container_config' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'container configuration', but lacks detail on what configuration entails or how it differs from similar tools like 'pve_get_container_status' or 'pve_get_vm_config', failing to provide meaningful differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any usage instructions. This omission is critical given the presence of sibling tools like 'pve_get_container_status' that might overlap in purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get storage status' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, returns real-time or cached data, has rate limits, or what the output format might be (e.g., JSON with metrics). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and waste-free. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified, but for this dimension alone, it scores high due to its brevity and lack of redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with two required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'storage status' includes, how to interpret results, or any behavioral aspects. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions ('node' as node name and 'storage' as storage ID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get storage status' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_get_node_storage_status'. While it indicates a read operation ('Get') and the resource ('storage status'), it lacks specificity about what 'storage status' entails (e.g., capacity, usage, health) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pve_get_storage' or 'pve_list_node_storage_content'. This makes it vague and minimally informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., node-specific storage), or differentiate it from similar sibling tools (e.g., 'pve_get_storage' for general storage info or 'pve_list_node_storage' for listing storage). This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get task status' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether there are rate limits, what the response format looks like, or whether this is a real-time status check versus historical data. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it may be too brief for adequate functionality explanation, it scores perfectly on conciseness as every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'task status' means in this context, what format the status information is returned in, or how this differs from other task-related operations. The agent would struggle to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('node' and 'upid') having clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get task status' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_get_node_task_status'. While it indicates a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't specify what kind of task status is being retrieved or what resource this applies to. It doesn't distinguish this from other task-related tools like 'pve_stop_node_task' or 'pve_list_node_tasks'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what other tools might be used instead. Given the sibling tools include 'pve_stop_node_task' and 'pve_list_node_tasks', the agent has no guidance on when to choose this specific task status retrieval tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It does not disclose if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are formatted, or any rate limits. The description adds no context beyond the basic action, failing to compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loaded with the core action, though it lacks detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., snapshot names, dates), error conditions, or behavioral traits. For a tool with two required parameters and no structured output information, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'node' and 'vmid' parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter relationships or constraints. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List container snapshots' restates the tool name 'pve_list_container_snapshots' almost verbatim, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'container snapshots', but lacks detail on scope or output, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_vm_snapshots' or 'pve_get_container_status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating snapshots), or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List node services', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, returns paginated results, includes service states, or has rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it could benefit from more detail; however, it's not verbose or poorly structured, earning a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'services' includes, the return format, or behavioral aspects like permissions or pagination. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it falls short, making it inadequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('node' as 'Node name'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond this, not explaining what a 'node' is in context (e.g., Proxmox cluster node) or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List node services' restates the tool name 'pve_list_node_services' almost verbatim, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'node services', but lacks specificity about what 'services' entails (e.g., systemd services, Proxmox services) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'pve_get_node_service_state' or 'pve_node_service_start', leaving the purpose vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after node setup), or exclusions, and fails to reference sibling tools like 'pve_get_node_service_state' for checking individual service status or 'pve_node_service_start' for managing services, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states a listing action without details on permissions, rate limits, or output format. It implies a read-only operation but does not confirm safety or describe potential side effects, leaving significant gaps in transparency for a tool with multiple parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two words, 'List node storage', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. While it may be under-specified, it earns full marks for brevity and lack of redundant information, making it efficient in structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return values, usage context, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool effectively beyond basic parameter knowledge from the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all parameters clearly (e.g., node name, content filter, storage ID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List node storage' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It lacks specificity about what 'node storage' entails (e.g., storage volumes, configurations) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_storage' or 'pve_list_node_storage_content', leaving the purpose vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as how it differs from 'pve_list_storage' (which might list all storage) or 'pve_list_node_storage_content' (which might list content within storage). This absence makes it misleading for an agent trying to select the correct tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Restart a service' implies a mutation operation that could disrupt service availability, but it doesn't disclose critical details like whether it requires root/admin privileges, if it's idempotent, potential side effects on dependent services, or error handling. It lacks transparency for a tool that performs system-level actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary verbiage. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, but as a standalone assessment of conciseness, it's optimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of restarting a system service (a mutation with potential operational impact), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'restart' entails (e.g., stop-then-start), expected outcomes, error conditions, or safety considerations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both 'node' and 'service' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid service names or node naming conventions. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Restart a service' states a basic action but lacks specificity about what resource it operates on (a service on a Proxmox VE node) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pve_node_service_start', 'pve_node_service_stop', or 'pve_node_service_reload'. It's a tautology that mostly restates the tool name without adding meaningful context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 like starting, stopping, or reloading services, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing appropriate permissions or the service being in a restartable state. The description offers no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Start a service' implies a mutation operation that changes system state, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions (e.g., root access), potential side effects (e.g., service dependencies), or error conditions (e.g., if the service is already running). The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words: 'Start a service'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of starting a system service (a mutation operation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like success/failure responses, error handling, or operational constraints. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for safe and effective tool use is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('node' and 'service'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid node or service name, or provide examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start a service' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_node_service_start' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'Start' and resource 'a service', but lacks specificity about what kind of service (e.g., system service on a Proxmox VE node) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pve_node_service_stop' or 'pve_node_service_restart' beyond the obvious action difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the service must be stopped), when it's appropriate (e.g., after maintenance), or what alternatives exist (e.g., 'pve_node_service_restart' for restarting a running service). This leaves the agent with no contextual cues for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires administrative privileges, if changes are immediate or require restart, what happens to unspecified options (partial vs complete updates), or potential side effects. For a 12-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at just three words with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While severely under-specified for a complex tool, this isn't a conciseness issue but rather a completeness problem scored elsewhere. As pure text efficiency, it earns full marks.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'firewall options' encompass, doesn't provide context about the VM environment, doesn't mention relationships to other firewall tools, and offers no guidance on proper usage. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the description fails to provide the necessary operational context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 12 parameters clearly documented in the input schema including enums for policy_in, policy_out, log_level_in, and log_level_out. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides ('Set VM firewall options' doesn't elaborate on any parameters). With comprehensive schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set VM firewall options' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('Set') and resource ('VM firewall options'), but lacks specificity about what options are involved or how it differs from sibling tools like pve_set_container_firewall_options or pve_set_cluster_firewall_options. This provides only basic identification without meaningful differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or relationships to sibling tools like pve_get_vm_firewall_options (for reading settings) or pve_create_vm_firewall_rule (for rule management). Without any usage context, an agent would struggle to determine when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update HA group', which implies a mutation operation but fails to describe effects like whether changes are destructive, require specific permissions, or have side effects. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, 'Update HA group', and is front-loaded with no unnecessary information. While it lacks detail, it is not verbose or poorly structured, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of updating an HA group (a mutation operation with 5 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an HA group is, the impact of updates, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's context and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as usage examples or constraints beyond the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update HA group' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'HA group', but provides no information about what aspects are updated or what an HA group is, making it vague and minimally helpful beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'pve_create_ha_group' or 'pve_get_ha_group', nor does it provide any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent with no direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, if changes are destructive to existing network connectivity, what happens to unspecified fields, or if there are rate limits. It provides minimal behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during the update, potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. The combination of sparse description with rich parameter schema creates significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 9 parameters documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update network interface' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_update_node_network'. It doesn't specify what resource is being updated (node network interface) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'pve_create_node_network' or 'pve_delete_node_network'. The description lacks the specific verb+resource combination needed for clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or reference sibling tools like 'pve_create_node_network' for creation or 'pve_revert_node_network' for rollback. The description provides zero contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update storage configuration' implies a mutation operation but fails to describe critical behaviors such as required permissions, whether changes are destructive or reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with 9 parameters that likely modifies system storage settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient for quick scanning, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, return values, error handling, or practical usage scenarios, leaving significant gaps that hinder an agent's ability to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing basic documentation for all 9 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but does not compensate with any extra context about parameter interactions or usage examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update storage configuration' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'pve_update_storage' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'storage configuration', but lacks specificity about what aspects of storage configuration are updated or how it differs from sibling tools like 'pve_create_storage' or 'pve_delete_storage'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no indication of when this update operation is applicable compared to other storage-related tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get service state' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive), detail authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description lacks behavioral traits like whether it returns real-time status, historical data, or requires specific permissions, leaving significant gaps for a tool that interacts with system services.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and waste-free. However, it borders on under-specification, as it could benefit from slightly more detail (e.g., 'Get the current operational state of a specified service on a Proxmox node') without losing efficiency. The structure is minimal but effective for its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of interacting with node services and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., status codes, details like 'active' or 'inactive'), potential errors, or dependencies. For a tool with two required parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use, making this inadequate for reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('node' and 'service') clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of valid node or service names, or how they relate to the state retrieval. Since the schema provides full coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get service state' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_get_node_service_state'. While it indicates a read operation on a service, it lacks specificity about what 'service state' entails (e.g., running, stopped, enabled) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_node_service_start' or 'pve_node_service_stop' that manage services. This minimal description provides only basic intent without clarifying scope or output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing node and service names), contrast with sibling tools that list services (like 'pve_list_node_services') or manage service states, or specify use cases (e.g., monitoring, troubleshooting). Without such context, an agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List HA resources' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify whether this requires permissions, what the output format is (e.g., list of resources with details), or if there are rate limits. The description lacks details on behavioral traits beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with only three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, it is overly brief to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details for clarity and completeness. While it avoids waste, it sacrifices informativeness, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of HA resources in a Proxmox VE context, the description is incomplete. No annotations are provided, and there is no output schema, so the agent lacks information on return values, permissions, or error handling. The description does not compensate for these gaps, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns structured data about HA resources, especially compared to more detailed sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter 'type' documented as 'Filter by type' with enum values 'ct' and 'vm'. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'ct' (container) and 'vm' (virtual machine) mean in context. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List HA resources' restates the tool name 'pve_list_ha_resources' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. While 'List' is a clear verb and 'HA resources' identifies the resource, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., cluster-wide or node-specific) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_ha_groups' or 'pve_ha_status', which also relate to HA resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description does not mention sibling tools such as 'pve_list_ha_groups' for listing HA groups or 'pve_ha_status' for HA status, leaving the agent without context for selection. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit usage scenarios stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Renew' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether it's reversible, what happens during renewal, or potential side effects. For a certificate renewal tool with security implications, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it easy to parse. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it may be too brief for complete understanding, it's structurally efficient and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a certificate renewal operation with security implications and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what ACME certificates are, what 'node' represents in this context, what happens during renewal, or what the expected outcome is. The minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered for proper tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('node' and 'force') adequately. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides about these parameters. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Renew ACME certificate' states the action and resource but is vague about scope and context. It doesn't specify what 'node' refers to or what type of certificate is being renewed, making it less clear than ideal. While it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on certificate renewal, it lacks the specificity needed for full understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or what happens if the certificate isn't due for renewal. With many sibling tools available, this lack of context makes it difficult for an agent to determine appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits or side effects. The description fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic action implied by the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified—it lacks necessary detail for a mutation tool. While there's no wasted language, the description fails to provide adequate information, making it more sparse than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, return values, error conditions, or relationship to other backup operations. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema and inference, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool effectively in context with its many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all 7 parameters including their types, descriptions, and one enum. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it doesn't enhance understanding of parameter meanings or usage. However, since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't detract from the existing documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a backup job' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what aspects of a backup job can be updated or what the operation entails beyond the basic verb-noun pairing. While it identifies the resource (backup job), it lacks the detail needed to distinguish it meaningfully from other backup-related tools like pve_create_backup_job or pve_delete_backup_job.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing backup job ID), when to choose update over create or delete, or how it relates to sibling tools like pve_list_backup_jobs. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema, with no explicit context from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Backup a VM' implies a write operation that creates backup data, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects: whether this operation is destructive to the running VM, what permissions are required, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, within the scoring framework, it's perfectly front-loaded with zero wasted words. Every word directly contributes to stating the tool's purpose, making it maximally efficient in terms of word economy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a backup tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. Backup operations typically have important behavioral considerations (VM state during backup, storage requirements, performance impact) that aren't addressed. The description fails to provide the necessary context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively, especially given the complexity implied by the parameter set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the structured schema. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't explain what 'node', 'vmid', 'storage' refer to, or clarify the meaning of backup modes. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline is 3, but the description adds zero value beyond what's already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Backup a VM' clearly states the action (backup) and resource (VM), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's quite vague - it doesn't specify what type of backup (full, incremental, snapshot-based) or distinguish this tool from potential sibling backup-related tools (though none are listed among the siblings). It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to other backup methods. Given the extensive list of sibling tools (including many VM management tools), this lack of contextual guidance is a significant deficiency.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create VM snapshot' implies a write operation that modifies system state, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive to existing snapshots, what happens to VM state during creation (hinted by the 'vmstate' parameter but not explained), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description 'Create VM snapshot' is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There is zero waste or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. While it may be under-specified in other dimensions, in terms of brevity and structure, it is optimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of creating a VM snapshot (a mutation operation with potential system impact), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, effects on VM state, or error conditions, which are crucial for safe tool use. The schema handles parameters well, but the overall context for invocation is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters clearly documented in the schema itself (e.g., node name, VM ID, snapshot name, description, VM state inclusion). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting without description enhancement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create VM snapshot' clearly states the action (create) and resource (VM snapshot), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'pve_create_container_snapshot' or other snapshot-related tools like 'pve_rollback_vm_snapshot' and 'pve_delete_vm_snapshot', leaving ambiguity about when to use each. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to VM snapshots (e.g., pve_create_container_snapshot, pve_rollback_vm_snapshot, pve_delete_vm_snapshot, pve_get_vm_snapshot_config, pve_list_vm_snapshots), but the description doesn't mention any of them or specify contexts like creating vs. managing snapshots. This absence of usage guidance is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Suspend a container' implies a state change operation, but it doesn't explain what suspension means in this context (e.g., pausing vs. saving state to disk), whether it's reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to running processes. The description provides minimal behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words ('Suspend a container'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it may be too brief for adequate completeness, as a standalone statement it's structurally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a state-changing operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what suspension entails, how it differs from other stop operations, what the expected outcome is, or whether there are side effects. Given the complexity of container management and the presence of many sibling tools for container state control, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter documentation ('node' as node name, 'vmid' as container ID). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate but also adds no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Suspend a container' clearly states the verb ('suspend') and resource ('container'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_stop_container' or 'pve_shutdown_container' that also affect container state, leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes suspension from other stopping methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'pve_stop_container', 'pve_shutdown_container', 'pve_reboot_container', and 'pve_resume_container' available, there's no indication of when suspension is appropriate versus other state-changing operations or how it relates to resumption.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Convert container to template' implies a destructive/mutative operation that likely transforms a running container into a template, but the description doesn't specify whether this destroys the original container, requires the container to be stopped, has permission requirements, or what happens to container data. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, which is appropriately sized for a simple operation. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness, as it omits important context that would help the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the conversion process, what a 'template' means in this context, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what the result looks like. Given the complexity of converting a container to a template, the description should provide more contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter documentation ('node' and 'vmid'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Convert container to template' clearly states the action (convert) and target (container to template), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'pve_convert_vm_to_template' - both perform conversion operations on different resource types (container vs VM). The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with related tools like 'pve_convert_vm_to_template' or 'pve_create_container_snapshot'. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure (e.g., if name conflicts), or if it affects cluster state. It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects, making it inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary context for a mutation tool. Every word earns its place, but more content would improve completeness without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral context, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an IP set is, how it integrates with the cluster, or what the tool returns. For a create operation in a system with many sibling tools, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with parameters 'name' and 'comment' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying an IP set is created, which the schema already covers through property names. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create cluster IP set' states the action (create) and resource (cluster IP set), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what an 'IP set' is in this context (e.g., firewall rule grouping, network configuration) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'pve_create_firewall_alias' or 'pve_create_security_group', which might have overlapping functions. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name, but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., cluster setup), exclusions, or related tools like 'pve_list_ipsets' for checking existing sets. It leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete storage configuration', implying a destructive operation, but lacks details on permissions required, irreversibility, effects on associated resources, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with critical details given its destructive nature.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like safety warnings, return values, or prerequisites, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'storage' documented as 'Storage ID'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline is 3 since the schema adequately covers the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete storage configuration' clearly states the action (delete) and target (storage configuration), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'storage configuration' entails compared to sibling tools like pve_delete_storage_content or pve_delete_node_network, making it somewhat vague in differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Sibling tools include pve_delete_storage_content (which deletes content within storage) and pve_update_storage (which modifies storage), but the description offers no comparison or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects running systems, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at four words, with zero wasted language. It front-loads the key action ('Delete') and target ('storage content (volume)'), making it easy to scan. However, it might be overly terse given the tool's destructive nature and lack of supporting context in other fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like irreversible deletion, permissions, impact on virtual machines using the volume, or error handling. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall, the description fails to provide sufficient guidance for safe and correct usage in a complex system like Proxmox.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for node, storage, and volume parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or interdependencies. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have added value by explaining the hierarchical relationship between these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete storage content (volume)' clearly states the action (delete) and target (storage content/volume), which is specific enough to understand the basic function. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar deletion tools like pve_delete_storage or pve_delete_container, which also remove resources in the Proxmox environment. The description is adequate but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., pve_delete_storage, pve_delete_vm, pve_delete_container), but the description doesn't explain that this specifically deletes volumes within storage, not the storage itself or other resources. No prerequisites, warnings, or context for usage are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get backup job configuration,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, returns detailed or summary data, or has any side effects like logging. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Get backup job configuration') that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the action and resource, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of backup job configurations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the configuration includes, return format, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially with no output schema to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Backup job ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get backup job configuration' clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('backup job configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_backup_jobs' or 'pve_update_backup_job', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific retrieval tool versus listing all jobs or modifying one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With siblings like 'pve_list_backup_jobs' (for listing all jobs) and 'pve_update_backup_job' (for modifications), the description lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing a specific job ID, or exclusions, like not using it for bulk operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get HA group configuration' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the configuration is returned in, or if there are any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence: 'Get HA group configuration'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness, such as by hinting at the output format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' entails (e.g., settings, resources, state) or how the output is structured. For a tool that likely returns detailed HA group data, more context is needed to help an agent use it effectively, especially with no output schema to fall back on.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'group' documented as 'HA group ID'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of group IDs or where to find them. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get HA group configuration' clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('HA group configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_ha_groups' or 'pve_ha_status', which might provide related information about HA groups. The description is functional but lacks specificity about what exactly is retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'pve_list_ha_groups' (likely listing multiple groups) and 'pve_ha_status' (possibly showing HA status), there's no indication whether this tool is for detailed configuration of a specific group or how it differs. Users must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is read-only (implied by 'get' but not explicit), requires permissions, has rate limits, returns structured data, or affects system state. More context on what SMART data includes (e.g., health metrics) would help.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get disk SMART data', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it may be overly terse, lacking necessary context for a tool with no annotations or output schema, slightly reducing effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., SMART attributes, health status), error conditions, or usage context. For a diagnostic tool with 3 parameters, more detail on output format and behavioral traits is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying SMART data retrieval, which aligns with the schema but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'healthonly' modifies output). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get disk SMART data' clearly states the action (get) and resource (disk SMART data), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'pve_list_node_disks' or 'pve_get_node_status'. It specifies what data is retrieved but not the context (e.g., for monitoring health).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., node availability), related tools (e.g., pve_list_node_disks to find disks first), or exclusions (e.g., not for virtual disks). Usage is implied only by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, returns structured data or raw output, handles errors, or has rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this minimal description is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly terse, bordering on under-specification, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., DNS settings as JSON), error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool that likely returns configuration data, this lack of context leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'node' documented as 'Node name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or valid node names. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get node DNS configuration' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('node DNS configuration'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what 'DNS configuration' entails (e.g., nameservers, search domains) or distinguish this tool from similar 'get' tools like pve_get_node_network or pve_get_node_status, which reduces its specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing node access), exclusions (e.g., not for setting DNS), or related tools like pve_set_node_dns for modification. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), potential permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens if parameters are invalid. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly terse and lacks front-loaded critical details like scope or output, slightly reducing effectiveness despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'firewall options' include or the return format, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's behavior and results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, clearly defining 'node' and 'vmid' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get VM firewall options' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('VM firewall options'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'options' entails (e.g., configuration settings, rules, policies) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'pve_get_container_firewall_options' or 'pve_get_vm_config', leaving ambiguity in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'pve_set_vm_firewall_options' for updates, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all users' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no users exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, it's arguably too brief, bordering on under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it sacrifices helpful context for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (list operation with 2 optional parameters) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, the description should provide more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('enabled' for filtering by status and 'full' for including group/token info). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all users' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('users'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'pve_get_user' (which likely retrieves a single user) or 'pve_list_groups' (which lists groups instead). The description lacks specificity about what 'all' means in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of sibling tools like 'pve_get_user' for single-user retrieval or 'pve_list_groups' for different resource types. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Reboot a container' implies a destructive operation that restarts the container, but it doesn't specify critical details: whether it's graceful or forced, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to running processes, expected downtime, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence 'Reboot a container', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it may be overly terse given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with parameters), potentially sacrificing clarity for brevity. It earns a 4 for efficiency but could benefit from slightly more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive reboot operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, side effects), usage context, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly in a production environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (node name, container ID, timeout in seconds). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining timeout behavior (e.g., default value, what happens on timeout) or parameter constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reboot a container' clearly states the action (reboot) and target (container), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'reboot' entails in this context (e.g., graceful restart vs. forced reboot) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pve_reset_vm' or 'pve_shutdown_container', which involve similar restart/shutdown actions on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., container must be running), compare it to similar tools like 'pve_reboot_vm' (for VMs) or 'pve_reset_vm' (force reset), or specify scenarios where rebooting is appropriate (e.g., after configuration changes). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose critical traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or side effects. It lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps for a tool that modifies access control.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single phrase 'Update Access Control List', which is appropriately concise and front-loaded. There is no wasted text, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as specifying the system context (e.g., Proxmox VE).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of updating access control (a sensitive mutation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an ACL is, the impact of updates, error conditions, or return values. For a tool with 6 parameters and significant security implications, this minimal description is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or interdependencies. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Access Control List' states the action (update) and resource (Access Control List), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what an ACL is in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like pve_get_acl (which likely retrieves ACLs) or other update tools. It meets the minimum requirement but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to siblings like pve_get_acl. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update container configuration' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified settings, or if there are side effects like container restarts. For a tool with 16 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and waste-free. However, it borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity—while efficient, it may be too brief to fully convey purpose without relying heavily on the schema and context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' entails, behavioral traits, or return values, leaving the agent to infer details solely from the schema. For a mutation tool with rich parameters, more descriptive context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all 16 parameters are documented in the input schema with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Memory in MB', 'CPU cores'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't compensate with extra context like format examples or interdependencies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update container configuration' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('container configuration'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what aspects can be updated or differentiate it from similar tools like 'pve_update_vm_config' or 'pve_get_container_config' among the siblings, leaving room for ambiguity about its specific scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing container), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'pve_get_container_config' for reading or 'pve_create_container' for initial setup. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose correctly among related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update pool configuration' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this requires administrative permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on running VMs), or error handling. The description is minimal and fails to add meaningful context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, it borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation). While efficient, it could benefit from slightly more detail to be fully helpful without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, the expected outcomes, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies pool configurations—potentially affecting VMs and storage—this lack of context is a significant gap, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema (e.g., poolid, comment, vms, storage, delete). The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, such as explaining the format for VM IDs or how 'delete' interacts with 'vms' and 'storage'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update pool configuration' clearly states the action (update) and target (pool configuration), which is adequate. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of pool configuration can be updated (e.g., VMs, storage) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like pve_update_storage or pve_update_group, which follow similar naming patterns. It's not tautological but remains vague about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for modifying existing pools versus creating new ones (pve_create_pool) or deleting them (pve_delete_pool). The description offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without directional cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. 'Apply network changes' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it requires admin permissions, if it causes network downtime, what happens on failure, or if it's idempotent. The parenthetical '(reload config)' hints at reloading configuration, but this is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—just two words plus a parenthetical—with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded and to the point, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a network configuration mutation tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, side effects, error conditions, or what 'apply' means operationally. For a tool that likely impacts system networking, this is a significant gap in providing enough context for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'node' parameter is documented as 'Node name'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter—it doesn't explain what a 'node' is in this context or how to identify it, but the schema already provides the essential info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Apply network changes (reload config)' states a verb ('apply') and resource ('network changes'), but it's vague about what 'apply' entails—does it commit pending changes, restart services, or something else? It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'pve_update_node_network' (which likely modifies config) or 'pve_revert_node_network' (which undoes changes), leaving ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be called after 'pve_update_node_network' to activate changes, or if it's safe to use during network operations. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get package changelog' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the changelog returns (e.g., text, JSON), if there are rate limits, or if it's a blocking call. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words ('Get package changelog'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. While the purpose is clear, it doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, response format, or error conditions. For a tool in a complex system (Proxmox VE) with many sibling tools, more context would help the agent understand when and how to use it properly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('node' and 'name'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get package changelog' clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'package changelog', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'pve_apt_update' or 'pve_apt_versions', which also relate to package management. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools like 'pve_apt_versions' (which might show version info) or 'pve_list_apt_updates' (which might list available updates). Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get package versions' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, if it's safe to run frequently, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of packages with versions), or any potential side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, 'Get package versions', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (likely low, as it retrieves package versions), no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'package versions' entails (e.g., installed vs. available), the context within Proxmox VE, or the expected return format. This leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'node' described as 'Node name'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a 'node' represents in Proxmox VE (e.g., a physical server) or providing examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameter without extra value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get package versions' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('package versions'), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of packages (e.g., APT packages in Proxmox VE context) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pve_list_apt_updates' or 'pve_apt_changelog', making it somewhat vague in comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context (e.g., for system updates or troubleshooting), or how it differs from related tools like 'pve_list_apt_updates' (which might list available updates) or 'pve_apt_changelog' (which provides change logs). This absence leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose that this is a mutation operation (implied by 'clone'), potential side effects (e.g., resource consumption, downtime), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single three-word phrase, 'Clone a container', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-specified, it earns full marks for brevity and lack of redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly in a system with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying cloning involves source and target parameters, but doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., 'node' and 'vmid' identify the source) or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clone a container' states the basic action but is vague about scope and differentiation. It specifies the verb ('clone') and resource ('container'), but doesn't clarify what cloning entails (e.g., creating a copy with optional modifications) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pve_clone_vm' or 'pve_create_container' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., existing container to clone), exclusions (e.g., not for VMs), or comparisons to siblings like 'pve_create_container' for new containers or 'pve_clone_vm' for virtual machines, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Clone a virtual machine' implies a write operation that creates a new VM, but it doesn't mention potential impacts like resource consumption, permissions required, whether it's idempotent, or how it handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Clone a virtual machine', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter mapping.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so all 11 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., 'node' vs. 'target') or typical values. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clone a virtual machine' clearly states the action (clone) and resource (virtual machine), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'pve_clone_container' or 'pve_create_vm'. It lacks specificity about what cloning entails in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'pve_create_vm' or 'pve_clone_container', nor are prerequisites or typical use cases mentioned. The description alone offers no usage context beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new backup job' implies a write operation that may have side effects (e.g., scheduling tasks, consuming storage), but it doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether the job runs immediately, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly and what to expect in return.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., 'vmid' vs. 'all'), default behaviors, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new backup job' clearly states the action (create) and resource (backup job), but it's vague about what a backup job entails—it doesn't specify that it's for scheduling automated backups of VMs/containers in Proxmox VE. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pve_backup_vm' (one-time backup) and 'pve_create_replication_job' (different type of job), but the distinction is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing storage configured), when to use it over one-time backups ('pve_backup_vm'), or how it relates to other job types like replication jobs. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a write operation, permission requirements, side effects, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what a firewall alias is, how it's used, success/failure behaviors, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'name' and 'cidr' interact or format examples, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create firewall alias' states the action and resource, but is vague about what a firewall alias entails in this context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pve_create_firewall_rule' by specifying 'alias', but lacks detail on the alias's purpose or function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites, related tools like 'pve_list_firewall_aliases', or scenarios where creating an alias is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Create a new group' which implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the group ID must be unique, what happens on conflict, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence 'Create a new group', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It's appropriately sized for its limited content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, usage, and output, failing to compensate for the missing structured data, making it insufficient for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'groupid' and 'comment' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new group' states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('group'), but it's vague about what type of group is being created (e.g., user group, security group, HA group) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like pve_create_security_group or pve_create_ha_group. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating users or before assigning permissions), or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new role', implying a write operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the role is immediately active, potential side effects (e.g., affecting existing users), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the key action and resource. There is no wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of creating a role (a mutation with security implications), no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, this is incomplete. The description fails to address critical aspects like return values, error handling, or operational context, leaving the agent with insufficient information for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'roleid' and 'privs' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of valid role IDs or privilege formats. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new role' clearly states the action (create) and resource (role), but it's vague about what a 'role' entails in this context (e.g., access control, permissions) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'pve_create_user' or 'pve_create_group', which also create entities. It's not tautological but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin rights), when to use it over updating existing roles, or how it relates to other tools like 'pve_update_role' or 'pve_list_roles'. The description offers no context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether this affects running systems, potential side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool in a system management context, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick scanning while conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a security group is in this context, what it's used for, what happens after creation, or any behavioral aspects. The agent would need to guess about the tool's effects and appropriate usage scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('group' and 'comment') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create firewall security group' clearly states the action (create) and resource (firewall security group), which is specific enough to understand the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_create_firewall_alias' or 'pve_create_cluster_firewall_rule', leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes a security group from other firewall-related entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple firewall-related creation tools in the sibling list (e.g., pve_create_firewall_alias, pve_create_cluster_firewall_rule, pve_create_vm_firewall_rule), there's no indication of when a security group is appropriate versus other firewall components, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a container' implies a destructive operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, or what happens to associated resources. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. There's zero waste or unnecessary verbiage - every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the consequences of deletion, what 'container' means in this context, error conditions, or return values. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a container' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (container), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'pve_delete_vm' or 'pve_delete_container_snapshot' - it's unclear what makes a container different from these other deletable resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple deletion tools in the sibling list (delete_vm, delete_container_snapshot, delete_storage, etc.), but the description doesn't explain when a container should be deleted versus other resources, nor does it mention prerequisites or dependencies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description does not specify if this action is irreversible, requires admin permissions, affects network connectivity, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a destructive network operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details like behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility), error conditions, or what happens post-deletion. This makes it inadequate for safe and informed tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions ('Node name' and 'Interface name'). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete network interface' states a clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('network interface'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what type of network interface (e.g., on a Proxmox VE node) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pve_delete_vm' or 'pve_delete_storage', which also delete resources but different types. This makes it vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., network interface must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'pve_update_node_network' or 'pve_create_node_network'. Without such context, an agent might misuse it or overlook better options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, affects dependent resources, or has confirmation requirements. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words ('Delete resource pool'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target. While it may be too brief for adequate completeness, as a standalone statement it's perfectly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there are confirmation steps, what resources might be affected, or what the tool returns. The combination of a dangerous operation with minimal description creates significant risk for an AI agent trying to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter ('poolid') clearly documented as 'Pool ID'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema fully covers the single parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra context about pool ID format or validation is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete resource pool' clearly states the action (delete) and target (resource pool), which is specific enough to understand the basic function. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (like pve_delete_container, pde_delete_vm, etc.), leaving ambiguity about what specifically makes a 'resource pool' different from other deletable resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple deletion tools in the sibling list, but the description doesn't indicate what makes a resource pool unique or when deletion is appropriate versus other operations. No prerequisites, warnings, or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete a role' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to users assigned to the role, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, front-loaded with the core action. There's zero wasted language, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context about permissions, consequences, error handling, or return values. Given the complexity of deletion operations in systems like Proxmox VE, more guidance is needed to help an agent use this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter 'roleid' documented as 'Role ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., numeric vs. string), valid values, or where to find role IDs. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a role' clearly states the action (delete) and target (role), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like pve_delete_user or pve_delete_group. It's a basic statement of purpose without specificity about what kind of role or system context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., role must exist, no dependencies), exclusions, or related tools like pve_list_roles or pve_update_role. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is deletion, implying a destructive operation, but does not specify consequences (e.g., data loss, irreversibility), permissions needed, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like behavioral traits (e.g., safety warnings, side effects) and does not compensate for the absence of structured data, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the 'force' parameter's implications or parameter interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete VM snapshot' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (VM snapshot), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what distinguishes it from similar tools like pve_delete_container_snapshot or pve_rollback_vm_snapshot, making it vague in sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like pve_rollback_vm_snapshot or pve_delete_vm. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring the VM to be stopped or specific permissions, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the group doesn't exist (e.g., error handling), or the format of the returned configuration. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. This is an example of efficient communication where every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves configuration data. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' includes (e.g., JSON structure, key fields) or behavioral aspects like error responses. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'groupid' documented as 'Group ID'. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this (e.g., explaining what a group ID is or where to find it). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get group configuration' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('group configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'configuration' entails (e.g., settings, members, permissions) and doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'get' tools like pve_get_user or pve_get_pool beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a group ID), contrast with sibling tools like pve_list_groups (which lists groups without details), or specify use cases (e.g., for editing or auditing). This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the resource doesn't exist. For a tool accessing HA resource configuration (a critical infrastructure component), this lack of transparency is problematic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted text. Every word ('Get', 'HA', 'resource', 'configuration') contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that retrieves HA resource configuration (potentially complex infrastructure data) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' includes, the format of returned data, or any prerequisites. Given the critical nature of HA resources in a Proxmox environment, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'sid' well-documented as 'HA resource ID (e.g., vm:100)'. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get HA resource configuration' clearly states the action (Get) and target (HA resource configuration), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'configuration' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_ha_group' or 'pve_ha_status' that also retrieve HA-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'pve_list_ha_resources' (which likely lists resources) and 'pve_ha_status' (which likely shows overall HA status), there's no indication whether this tool is for detailed configuration of a specific resource or how it differs from other HA-related get operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what the output format might be. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'ACME account info' includes, potential error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'node' clearly described as 'Node name'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get node ACME account info' states the action (get) and resource (node ACME account info), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'ACME account info' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'get' siblings like pve_get_node_status or pve_get_node_subscription, which also retrieve node-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when ACME account info is needed), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone among many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Read node journal' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, output format, pagination behavior, or whether this returns real-time streaming data versus historical logs. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the essential information. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'node journal' contains versus other logs, doesn't clarify the relationship between parameters (e.g., how 'since/until' interact with 'lastentries'), and provides no information about return format. For a data retrieval tool with filtering parameters, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema's documentation of node, since, until, lastentries, and service. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Read node journal' clearly states the action (read) and resource (node journal), which is specific enough to understand the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_node_syslog' or 'pve_get_node_task_log' that also retrieve log-like data from nodes, leaving ambiguity about when to choose this particular journal-reading tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve node-related data (e.g., pve_get_node_syslog, pve_get_node_task_log, pve_cluster_log), there's no indication of what makes the node journal distinct or when it should be preferred over other logging tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Generate' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether it's resource-intensive, what format the report comes in, or if it has any side effects. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words ('Generate node diagnostic report'), with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. For a simple tool with one parameter, this level of brevity is appropriate and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the 'diagnostic report' contains, what format it returns, whether it's a summary or detailed analysis, or how it differs from other node information tools. The combination of missing behavioral context and output information makes this description incomplete for the tool's purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'node' well-described as 'Node name' in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate node diagnostic report' states a clear verb ('Generate') and resource ('node diagnostic report'), but it's somewhat vague about what exactly constitutes a 'diagnostic report' and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'pve_get_node_status' or 'pve_get_node_journal' that also retrieve node information. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity about the report's content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve node information (e.g., pve_get_node_status, pve_get_node_journal, pve_get_node_syslog), there's no indication of what makes this 'diagnostic report' different or when it should be preferred over other node information tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what 'status and statistics' includes (e.g., CPU/memory usage, uptime, load), whether it requires special permissions, or how the data is formatted. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words ('Get node status and statistics'), with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'status and statistics' specifically includes, how the data is structured, or what the agent can expect in return. Given the complexity of node monitoring data and the lack of structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'node' clearly documented as 'Node name'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get node status and statistics' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('node status and statistics'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'pve_get_node_service_state', 'pve_get_node_report', or 'pve_get_node_storage_status', which also retrieve node-related information but focus on different aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve node information (e.g., 'pve_get_node_service_state', 'pve_get_node_report'), there's no indication of what specific 'status and statistics' this tool provides or when it's preferred over other node-related get tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the subscription status returns. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words: 'Get node subscription status'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'subscription status' means in this context (Proxmox VE subscription?), what values might be returned, or any behavioral considerations. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output format based solely on the minimal description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema (100% coverage). The schema already documents the single 'node' parameter with description 'Node name'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't add value but doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get node subscription status' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('node subscription status'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_node_status' or 'pve_get_node_version' that also retrieve node information, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus other 'get' operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools starting with 'pve_get_node_' (e.g., pve_get_node_status, pve_get_node_version), there's no indication whether subscription status is a subset of general node information or a distinct query. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Read' implies a read-only operation, but there's no information about permissions required, rate limits, whether the log is real-time or historical, or what format the output takes. The description doesn't mention pagination behavior, error conditions, or any other behavioral characteristics beyond the basic read action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. While it may be too brief for optimal tool selection, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (log format, structure, typical content), doesn't mention any constraints or limitations, and provides no context about the system log's nature. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to help an agent understand what to expect from this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how 'start' and 'limit' work together with 'since' and 'until'), nor does it provide examples or format details for date parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Read node system log' clearly states the action (read) and resource (node system log), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like pve_get_node_journal or pve_get_node_task_log. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what kind of system log or what distinguishes it from other log-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple log-related tools in the sibling list (pve_get_node_journal, pve_get_node_task_log, pve_cluster_log), there's no indication of when this specific system log tool is appropriate versus other logging mechanisms. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or if it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words ('Get node version information'), which is front-loaded and wastes no space. For a simple tool with one parameter, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'version information' includes, the format of the return value, or any behavioral context. While concise, it lacks sufficient detail for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'node' clearly described as 'Node name'. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, such as examples of node names or format constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get node version information' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('node version information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'version information' specifically entails (e.g., software version, API version, kernel version) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pve_version' or 'pve_get_node_status', which might also provide version-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing node access), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'pve_version' (which might get overall system version) or 'pve_get_node_status' (which might include version as part of status). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if the ID is invalid), rate limits, or what the output looks like (since there's no output schema).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand the full behavior, such as what data is returned or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps despite the simple input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Replication job ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain format, sourcing, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, reflecting adequate but minimal value added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get replication job configuration' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('replication job configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_backup_job' or 'pve_list_replication_jobs' beyond the obvious resource difference, and it lacks specificity about what 'configuration' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a job ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'pve_list_replication_jobs' for listing all jobs versus getting a specific one's details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get role configuration' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the configuration data returns in, whether there are rate limits, or what happens if the role doesn't exist. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the essential information (get role configuration) with zero wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. This is an excellent example of conciseness for a simple retrieval operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for helping an agent understand what to expect. While the tool appears simple (one parameter, read operation), the description doesn't explain what 'role configuration' includes, what format it returns, or any error conditions. For a tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'roleid' parameter is documented as 'Role ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides - it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid role ID or where to find role IDs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get role configuration' clearly states the action (get) and resource (role configuration), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'get' tools in the sibling list (like pve_get_user, pve_get_group, etc.), leaving the purpose somewhat vague about what makes this particular 'get' operation unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for retrieving different types of configurations (users, groups, VMs, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate when role configuration specifically is needed or what prerequisites might exist for using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get storage configuration' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the configuration is returned in (e.g., JSON, raw text), or if there are any rate limits or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral details needed for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description 'Get storage configuration' is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of storage management in a system like Proxmox VE (implied by sibling tools), the description is insufficient. No annotations are provided, and there is no output schema, so the agent doesn't know what the tool returns (e.g., configuration details, error formats). The description fails to address key contextual aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or how this tool fits into broader storage operations, making it incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'storage' documented as 'Storage ID'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain what a 'Storage ID' is, how to find it, or provide examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameter without additional value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get storage configuration' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('storage configuration'), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_node_storage_status' or 'pve_list_storage', leaving ambiguity about what specific aspect of storage configuration is retrieved. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity compared to alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'pve_list_storage' (which likely lists all storages) or 'pve_get_node_storage_status' (which might focus on status rather than configuration). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get user configuration' implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the configuration data returns. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. For a simple read operation with good schema coverage, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'user configuration' includes, what format the data returns, or any behavioral constraints. While the parameter is well-documented in the schema, the overall context for using this tool effectively is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'userid' clearly documented as 'User ID (format: user@realm)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get user configuration' clearly states the action (get) and resource (user configuration), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what 'user configuration' includes or distinguish this tool from other user-related tools like pve_create_user or pve_update_user beyond the obvious 'get' vs 'create/update' difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, related tools like pve_list_users, or context about what information this provides that other tools don't. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get snapshot configuration' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify if this requires permissions, returns detailed or summary data, or has side effects (e.g., triggering updates). It lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or output format, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Get snapshot configuration') with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the action, making it easy to parse. Every word serves a purpose, adhering to the principle of conciseness without being overly sparse in this context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' includes (e.g., metadata, settings), the return format, or any behavioral aspects like permissions or errors. For a tool that likely returns structured data about snapshots, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter names and descriptions (node name, VM ID, snapshot name). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining relationships between parameters or valid formats. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get snapshot configuration' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('snapshot configuration'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'configuration' entails (e.g., metadata, settings, state) and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'pve_list_vm_snapshots' (which might list snapshots) or 'pve_get_vm_config' (which gets VM config). It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing snapshot), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'pve_list_vm_snapshots' or 'pve_get_vm_config'. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns all rules or paginated results, error conditions, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple 2-parameter input, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, rule details), error handling, or dependencies. For a tool in a complex system like Proxmox, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (node and vmid) clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these parameters relate to container firewall rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List container firewall rules' clearly states the action (list) and resource (container firewall rules), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'pve_list_cluster_firewall_rules' or 'pve_list_vm_firewall_rules'. It's functional but lacks specificity about what exactly gets listed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With siblings like 'pve_list_cluster_firewall_rules' and 'pve_list_vm_firewall_rules', the description doesn't clarify that this is specifically for containers (not VMs or cluster-wide rules), leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List node disks', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors (e.g., invalid node), or what the output format might be (e.g., JSON list, table). For a tool with no annotations, this minimal description fails to provide essential behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, front-loaded with the core action ('List node disks'). There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (listing disks with 4 parameters, including filters like 'type' with enums), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, potential side effects, or usage context. For a tool that likely returns structured data about disks, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (e.g., 'node' as node name, 'skipsmart' to skip SMART data). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing extra explanation in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List node disks' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('node disks'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes 'disks' (e.g., physical drives, partitions, storage devices) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_node_storage' or 'pve_list_node_storage_content', which might handle related but different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid node name, or suggest scenarios for use (e.g., monitoring disk health, storage planning). With many sibling tools for listing resources, the absence of any comparative context leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('List') without details on permissions required, rate limits, output format (e.g., JSON list), pagination, or error handling. For a read operation in a system with many sibling tools, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence ('List VM firewall rules') with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to parse quickly without wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of firewall management in a virtualization environment, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output structure, error cases, and integration with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting 'node' and 'vmid' parameters. The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints (e.g., node must be online). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List VM firewall rules' clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('VM firewall rules'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all rules vs. filtered) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_container_firewall_rules' or 'pve_list_cluster_firewall_rules', which reduces clarity in a crowded toolset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating a rule), or related tools (e.g., 'pve_create_vm_firewall_rule' for adding rules), leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('List'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, rate limits, output format, pagination, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted text. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context, which are crucial for a tool with required parameters. The high schema coverage helps, but overall it doesn't provide enough context for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'node' and 'vmid' parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a 'node' or 'VM ID' represents in context, but the schema provides adequate baseline information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List VM snapshots' clearly states the action (list) and resource (VM snapshots), which is specific enough to understand the basic function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_container_snapshots' or 'pve_get_vm_snapshot_config', leaving ambiguity about scope and detail level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for listing snapshots (e.g., for management or recovery), or how it differs from related tools like 'pve_get_vm_snapshot_config' or 'pve_rollback_vm_snapshot'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Stop a service' implies a destructive action that halts a running process, but it doesn't specify consequences (e.g., service downtime, potential impact on dependent systems), permissions required, or error handling (e.g., what happens if the service is already stopped). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words ('Stop a service'), making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary details. Every word contributes directly to the core purpose, earning its place without waste, which is ideal for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical information such as behavioral effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it safely and effectively. This is inadequate for a mutation tool in a system management context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter names ('node', 'service') and descriptions ('Node name', 'Service name'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints (e.g., valid service names). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop a service' clearly states the verb ('Stop') and resource ('a service'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what type of service (e.g., system service on a Proxmox VE node) or distinguish it from similar tools like 'pve_node_service_start' or 'pve_node_service_restart' among the siblings, leaving it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the service must be running), when to choose this over 'pve_node_service_restart' or 'pve_stop_vm', or any exclusions (e.g., cannot stop critical services). This lack of context makes it difficult for an agent to apply it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Resize VM disk' indicates a mutation operation but lacks critical details: it does not specify if the VM must be stopped, if data is preserved, potential risks (e.g., data loss), or typical outcomes (e.g., success/failure indicators). The description is minimal and fails to convey necessary operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Resize VM disk'), consisting of three words that directly convey the core action. It is front-loaded with no unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a disk resizing operation (a mutation with potential data implications), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., VM state requirements, safety), usage context, and expected results. The high schema coverage does not compensate for these gaps in operational guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented in the input schema (e.g., 'size' as 'New size (e.g., +10G, 50G)'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Since the schema provides full coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Resize VM disk' clearly states the verb ('Resize') and resource ('VM disk'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'resize' entails (e.g., increasing or decreasing capacity) and does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'pve_resize_container_disk', which performs a similar operation for containers instead of VMs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., VM state, permissions), exclusions (e.g., when not to resize), or refer to related tools like 'pve_move_vm_disk' or 'pve_resize_container_disk' for context. Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Rollback' implies a destructive or state-changing operation, but the description doesn't clarify if this stops the container, requires specific permissions, affects running processes, or has irreversible consequences. It lacks details on error conditions, execution time, or what happens to current container state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action. There's zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but as a standalone measure of brevity and structure, it's optimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'rollback' entails behaviorally, what the tool returns, error handling, or safety considerations. Given the complexity of snapshot rollbacks and the lack of structured metadata, more context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (node, vmid, snapname, start). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters are needed for the rollback operation. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter roles or interactions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Rollback container to snapshot' clearly states the action (rollback) and target (container to snapshot), but it's somewhat vague about the scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_rollback_vm_snapshot' which performs a similar operation on VMs rather than containers. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about what 'rollback' entails beyond the basic concept.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing snapshot), when not to use it (e.g., during container operation), or comparison to related tools like 'pve_revert_node_network' or 'pve_rollback_vm_snapshot'. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Rollback VM to snapshot' implies a destructive operation that reverts the VM to a previous state, but it fails to specify critical details such as whether the VM must be stopped first, if data loss occurs, permission requirements, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, posing risks for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single phrase, 'Rollback VM to snapshot', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a destructive rollback operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, side effects), usage context, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly in a production environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all parameters (node, vmid, snapname, start). The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Rollback VM to snapshot' clearly states the action (rollback) and target (VM to snapshot), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'rollback' entails (e.g., restoring VM state) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'pve_rollback_container_snapshot', which performs a similar operation on containers instead of VMs. This makes it vague in comparison to more detailed descriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing snapshot), exclusions (e.g., not usable while VM is running without precautions), or related tools like 'pve_create_vm_snapshot' for creating snapshots first. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Set' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether changes are immediate, require specific permissions, are destructive to existing settings, or have side effects. It mentions no rate limits, error conditions, or response format, leaving critical gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, avoiding unnecessary elaboration given the comprehensive schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on behavior, error handling, prerequisites, and output, which are critical for safe and effective use. The schema covers parameters well, but overall guidance is inadequate for a tool that modifies system settings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 10 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set container firewall options' clearly states the action (Set) and target (container firewall options), but it's vague about what 'options' entails. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like pve_set_cluster_firewall_options or pve_set_vm_firewall_options, which have similar naming patterns but different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing pve_get_container_firewall_options first, or clarify that it's for containers specifically (not VMs or clusters), despite siblings like pve_set_vm_firewall_options existing. Usage is implied only by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Start a container' implies a state-changing operation, but it doesn't reveal critical details: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure (e.g., error handling), or if it's asynchronous. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words ('Start a container'), which is front-loaded and wastes no space. Every word directly contributes to the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of starting a container (a mutation operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool correctly. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter names and descriptions (e.g., 'node' as 'Node name', 'vmid' as 'Container ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start a container' clearly states the verb ('Start') and resource ('a container'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what type of container (e.g., LXC vs. Docker) and doesn't distinguish it from similar sibling tools like 'pve_start_vm' or 'pve_resume_container', which also involve starting/resuming virtual entities. This makes it vague in the broader context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the container must exist and be stopped), exclusions (e.g., not for VMs), or related tools like 'pve_stop_container' or 'pve_reboot_container'. Without such context, an agent might misuse it or overlook better options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Start a virtual machine' implies a state-changing operation but doesn't mention permissions required, side effects (e.g., resource allocation), error conditions, or what happens if the VM is already running. It lacks critical context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. No structural issues or unnecessary elaboration are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like idempotency, concurrency, or response format. Given the complexity of starting a VM in Proxmox VE, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'node' and 'vmid' or typical values for 'timeout'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start a virtual machine' clearly states the action (start) and resource (virtual machine), but it's generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_start_container' or 'pve_reboot_vm' that also involve VM state changes. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about the Proxmox VE context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pve_reboot_vm', 'pve_reset_vm', or 'pve_resume_vm'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must be stopped) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is to 'stop' a task, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is destructive (likely yes, as it stops something), permission requirements, side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation to stop a task), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'task' is, the consequences of stopping it, or what the return value might be. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. However, schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'node' (Node name) and 'upid' (Task UPID). This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing extra detail from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop a running task' clearly states the action (stop) and target (task), but it's vague about what constitutes a 'task' in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like pve_stop_container or pve_stop_vm, which also stop things. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the task must be running), what happens after stopping, or how it differs from other stop-related tools like pve_stop_container. Without this context, the agent has to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Suspend' implies a state change (likely from running to paused/hibernated), but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible (via resume tools), potential side effects, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Suspend a virtual machine' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., reversibility, permissions), usage guidelines, and any mention of return values or errors, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters (node, vmid, todisk, skiplock). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions or implications (e.g., 'todisk' for hibernation vs. memory-only suspend). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Suspend a virtual machine' clearly states the action (suspend) and target (virtual machine), which is a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'pve_suspend_container' (for containers) or 'pve_stop_vm' (different power state), leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'pve_stop_vm' or 'pve_shutdown_vm', leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update group configuration' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify what aspects can be updated, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to existing settings, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies system state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'group configuration' entails, what changes are possible, or what to expect after execution. For a tool that modifies system state, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (groupid and comment). Since schema_description_coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't add value here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update group configuration' clearly states the action (update) and resource (group configuration), which is specific enough to understand the basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other update tools in the sibling list (like pve_update_acl, pve_update_backup_job, etc.), leaving ambiguity about what specifically is being updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing group), exclusions, or sibling tools like pve_create_group or pve_delete_group that might be relevant in different contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update user configuration' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when fields are omitted. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. For a tool with comprehensive schema documentation, this brevity is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'user configuration' encompasses, what happens on success/failure, or provide any context about the Proxmox VE environment. The agent must rely entirely on the schema for understanding, which is inadequate for safe tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 8 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (it doesn't mention any specific parameters like userid, email, etc.). According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update user configuration' clearly states the action (update) and target (user configuration), which is better than a tautology. However, it's quite generic and doesn't specify what aspects of user configuration can be updated or distinguish this from other user-related tools like pve_create_user or pve_delete_user. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing user), when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like pve_create_user. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a destructive action ('wipe') but fails to detail critical traits like irreversible data loss, required permissions, or system impact. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that permanently alters disk structures.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context about the irreversible nature of the operation, potential system requirements, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'node' and 'disk' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Wipe disk partition table' clearly states the action (wipe) and target (disk partition table), providing a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this destructive operation from other disk management tools like 'pve_initialize_disk_gpt' or 'pve_list_node_disks' among the siblings, leaving the scope vague regarding alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the disk must be unmounted or if it's safe to use on active systems, and doesn't mention any exclusions or recommend other tools for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Refresh package index' implies a system update operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires admin permissions, if it's destructive to existing packages, potential side effects, or typical execution time. The description is too minimal for a mutation-like tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, front-loaded and zero waste. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a system update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what happens after execution, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter documentation. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Refresh package index' clearly states the action (refresh) and target (package index) with a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'pve_apt_changelog' or 'pve_apt_versions' which also operate on package-related functions, so it lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to related tools like 'pve_list_apt_updates' or 'pve_apt_changelog', leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Get cluster firewall options') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, whether it's a read-only operation, what format the output takes, or any other behavioral characteristics. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 4 words ('Get cluster firewall options'). It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. This is an example of appropriate conciseness for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description 'Get cluster firewall options' is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'options' encompasses, what the return format might be, or any behavioral context. For a tool that presumably returns configuration data, more detail about what kind of information is returned would be helpful for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to either document or miss.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get cluster firewall options' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (cluster firewall options), but it's somewhat vague about what 'options' specifically means. It distinguishes from siblings like pve_set_cluster_firewall_options (set vs get) but doesn't clarify what distinguishes it from pve_cluster_options or other firewall-related tools beyond the basic verb+resource pairing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools related to firewall management (e.g., pve_list_cluster_firewall_rules, pve_set_cluster_firewall_options, pve_get_container_firewall_options), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific 'get options' tool is appropriate versus those other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, has side effects, or how it handles errors. The description doesn't mention if it returns a single VMID or a list, or what happens when checking a specific vmid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise at just three words: 'Get next free VMID'. Every word earns its place - 'Get' specifies the action, 'next free' clarifies what kind of VMID, and 'VMID' identifies the resource. There's zero waste or redundancy, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is inadequate. The description doesn't explain what 'next free' means operationally, doesn't describe the return format, and provides no context about cluster scope or permissions. Given the complexity of VM management in Proxmox and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'vmid' well-described as 'Check if specific VMID is available'. The description text doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate or add value regarding parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get next free VMID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('next free VMID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pve_create_vm' or 'pve_list_vms' by focusing on VMID availability rather than VM operations. However, it doesn't specify whether this is for the entire cluster or a specific scope, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing cluster access), typical use cases (e.g., before creating a VM), or what to do if the optional vmid parameter is omitted. With many sibling tools for VM management, this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List all cluster resources', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient detail on how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource types. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, output structure, and usage context. For a tool in a complex environment like Proxmox VE, more information is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'type' fully documented in the schema. The description mentions resource types (VMs, containers, storage, nodes) which align with the enum values, but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all cluster resources'), specifying the types (VMs, containers, storage, nodes). It distinguishes from many siblings that target specific resources (e.g., pve_list_vms), but not from pve_list_nodes or pve_list_storage, which are more focused. It's specific but not fully differentiated from all similar list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like pve_list_vms or pve_list_nodes. The description implies a broad listing, but lacks context on scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. It's a basic statement without usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention required permissions, whether the rule is applied immediately, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a security-critical tool with 10 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. While it could benefit from additional context, what's present is maximally efficient without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex firewall rule creation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, how rules are ordered/prioritized, whether changes are immediate, or what permissions are required. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without significant trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage. This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('cluster firewall rule'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'pve_create_vm_firewall_rule' or 'pve_list_cluster_firewall_rules', which would require mentioning the cluster-level scope or contrasting with VM-level rules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing cluster permissions), when to use it over VM-level firewall rules, or refer to sibling tools like 'pve_list_cluster_firewall_rules' for verification. This leaves the agent without context for proper tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a mutation operation, the description lacks critical behavioral details such as required permissions, whether the container starts automatically, what happens on failure, rate limits, or the response format. For a complex creation tool with 24 parameters, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Create a new LXC container') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (24 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the creation process, success/failure behaviors, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with many configuration options, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed descriptions for all 24 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting. However, it doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new LXC container' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('LXC container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_create_vm' or 'pve_clone_container', which would require specifying that this is specifically for LXC containers rather than VMs or clones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., available nodes, templates), exclusions (e.g., not for cloning existing containers), or when to choose this over similar tools like 'pve_create_vm' or 'pve_clone_container'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new user' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention required permissions, potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a user creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a user creation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what permissions are required, whether the user becomes immediately active, or how this relates to other user management operations. The context signals indicate this is a complex operation that deserves more complete documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 9 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the basic purpose. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide any extra context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new user' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_create_group' or 'pve_create_role', which also create different types of entities in the system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it relates to other user management tools like 'pve_update_user' or 'pve_delete_user' in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('Delete') without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects associated data, or has confirmation prompts. For a destructive operation, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (e.g., success confirmation, error handling), nor does it provide context about backup jobs in the system. Given the complexity of deletion operations, more guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a backup job'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like pve_delete_container or pve_delete_vm_snapshot, which would require specifying what makes backup job deletion distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the backup job ID from pve_list_backup_jobs), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it. Sibling tools like pve_list_backup_jobs and pve_create_backup_job exist but aren't referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Delete a group' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., impact on users in the group), error conditions, or confirmation prompts. This is inadequate for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of efficient communication where every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address safety considerations, expected outcomes, or error handling. For a deletion tool in a system like Proxmox VE, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, making this insufficient for the complexity involved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'groupid' documented as 'Group ID'. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond this, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is strong. No additional semantics are needed, so a score of 4 reflects that the schema sufficiently handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a group' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (group), which is specific enough to understand the basic function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like pve_delete_user or pve_delete_pool, nor does it specify what type of group (e.g., user group, HA group) in the Proxmox VE context, making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., group must exist, no dependencies), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if in use), or related tools like pve_list_groups or pve_create_group, leaving the agent without context for proper selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: it doesn't warn that deletion is permanent, mention permission requirements, specify if the VM must be stopped first, describe error conditions, or indicate what happens to associated resources. For a high-stakes destructive tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward purpose, though the simplicity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by directly stating the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's high complexity (destructive VM deletion with 5 parameters), absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety warnings, permission requirements, preconditions, or behavioral outcomes. For a destructive operation in a VM management context, this minimal description leaves critical gaps that could lead to misuse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a virtual machine' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (virtual machine), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like pve_stop_vm or pve_backup_vm by specifying deletion rather than other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from pve_delete_container or pve_delete_vm_snapshot, which are similar deletion tools for different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must be stopped), consequences (irreversible deletion), or when to choose deletion over other VM management tools like pve_stop_vm or pve_reset_vm. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the action ('download') but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, network behavior (e.g., timeouts, retries), storage implications (e.g., overwriting files), or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs external network operations and storage writes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence 'Download file from URL to storage' that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters (5 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, error conditions, success indicators, or how it integrates with the broader Proxmox VE system. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context about what constitutes successful execution or what happens during failures.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all 7 parameters including enums for 'content' and 'checksum-algorithm'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already specifies, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'checksum' and 'checksum-algorithm' work together) or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Download file from URL to storage' clearly states the action (download) and target (file from URL to storage), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pve_upload_to_storage' by indicating directionality, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other download-related tools that might exist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., network access, storage availability), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'pve_upload_to_storage' or other storage operations, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get Access Control List' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what exactly is returned (e.g., global ACL, node-specific ACL, format), whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Get Access Control List') - just three words that directly convey the core purpose. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded and perfectly sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of ACL systems in Proxmox VE and the lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what scope of ACL is retrieved (cluster-wide, node-specific, VM-specific), what format the data returns, or any dependencies. For a tool that likely returns structured permission data, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Since there are no parameters to document, the description meets expectations without compensation needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Access Control List' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (Access Control List), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings (like pve_get_user, pve_get_group, pve_get_role) that also retrieve different types of ACL-related information in the Proxmox VE system. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no indications of prerequisites, context requirements, or comparisons to other ACL-related tools (like pve_update_acl for modifications or pve_list_* tools for other resources). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the output format might be. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'authentication domain configuration' entails, potential return values, or error conditions. For a tool with minimal structured data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'realm' documented as 'Authentication realm'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples or context for what a realm is. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('authentication domain configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_domains' which might list domains versus getting configuration for a specific one, missing full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't explain if this is for retrieving detailed configuration of a specific domain versus listing all domains with 'pve_list_domains', leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is retrieved, without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just four words, front-loading the key information with zero wasted text. Every word earns its place by specifying the action and target, making it efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value includes (e.g., time format, timezone details) or any behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps in understanding for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage (the 'node' parameter is fully described). This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does all the work, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of the parameter's role in getting time data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('node time and timezone'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_node_status' or 'pve_get_node_version' beyond the specific data type, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other 'pve_get_node_*' tools for different node information. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'configuration and members' includes. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Get pool configuration and members')—just four words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'configuration and members' entails, the format of the return value, or any side effects. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to be fully helpful to an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (poolid and type). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate or add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and target ('pool configuration and members'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other 'get' tools in the sibling list (like pve_get_acl, pve_get_container_config, etc.), which all follow similar naming patterns. The description is specific but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to other tools (e.g., pve_list_pools for listing pools without details). It's a basic statement of function without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific status/configuration fields are returned. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'status and configuration' includes, whether this returns real-time or cached data, or what format the response takes. Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('node' and 'vmid') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and target ('VM status and configuration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_vm_config' or 'pve_get_container_status', which could cause confusion about scope boundaries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pve_get_vm_config' (which might return only configuration) or 'pve_list_vms' (which might list VMs without detailed status). The description offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or relationship to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get HA cluster status' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the status information returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words ('Get HA cluster status'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. For a simple tool with no parameters, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of HA cluster systems and the lack of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'HA cluster status' entails (e.g., node health, resource states, quorum information) or what the return format looks like. For a status-checking tool in a critical infrastructure context, more context is needed to understand what information it provides.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, but with no parameters required, this is acceptable. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get HA cluster status' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('HA cluster status'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_cluster_status' or 'pve_get_ha_group', leaving ambiguity about what specific HA status information this provides versus other cluster-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to clusters, HA, and status (e.g., 'pve_cluster_status', 'pve_get_ha_group', 'pve_get_ha_resource'), there's no indication of when this specific HA status tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other status-checking tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention that this is a destructive operation (overwrites existing partition tables), requires administrative permissions, or what happens on success/failure. For a disk initialization tool, this lack of safety and outcome information is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward operation and is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive disk operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, permissions needed, or what to expect upon completion. For a tool that modifies system storage, this lack of context makes it inadequate for safe and informed use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (node, disk, uuid) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints (e.g., disk path patterns). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('initialize disk') and the specific outcome ('with GPT partition table'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'pve_wipe_disk' or other disk management tools, which would require mentioning what makes GPT initialization unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., disk must be uninitialized), when not to use it (e.g., on disks with existing data), or related tools like 'pve_wipe_disk' for clearing disks first. This leaves the agent without context for proper tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('List'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, returns structured data, has rate limits, or affects system state. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and communicates the core purpose immediately without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns package update information. It doesn't explain what 'available package updates' means in this context, what format the output takes, or any prerequisites for using the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'node' clearly documented as 'Node name'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List available package updates' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('available package updates'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_apt_versions' or 'pve_apt_update', which likely handle related but distinct APT operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'pve_apt_versions' and 'pve_apt_update' present, an agent would have no indication whether this is for checking updates, applying them, or comparing versions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the output takes, whether it's paginated, or if there are any rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 4 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, scope, and resource type without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information the listing provides, how results are formatted, whether there are filtering options (even though parameters are empty), or how this differs from other firewall-related tools. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List cluster firewall rules' clearly states the action (list) and resource (cluster firewall rules), but it's somewhat vague about scope and format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pve_list_container_firewall_rules' by specifying 'cluster' level, but doesn't explain what 'cluster' means in this context or how the output differs from other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple related firewall tools (pve_create_cluster_firewall_rule, pve_cluster_firewall_options, pve_list_container_firewall_rules) but no indication of when this specific listing tool is appropriate versus other listing or management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation (implied read-only) but doesn't cover aspects like output format, pagination, error conditions, or authentication needs, which are critical for a tool with no structured safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core purpose efficiently. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral traits, which are essential given the complexity of interacting with a Proxmox VE system. The agent would be left guessing about the output structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the single 'node' parameter. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., node examples, constraints), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('all LXC containers on a node'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_vms' or 'pve_list_nodes', which list different resource types in the same system, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to other listing tools in the sibling set, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, returns paginated results, or includes metadata like alias types. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted space or redundant information, making it efficient for quick comprehension, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks context on what firewall aliases are, the scope of listing (e.g., node-specific or cluster-wide), or example output, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in a broader system context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the absence of parameters, warranting a baseline score of 4 as it doesn't mislead or omit necessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List firewall aliases' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('firewall aliases'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what firewall aliases are (e.g., IP/network groupings in Proxmox) or distinguish this tool from similar list tools like pve_list_ipsets or pve_list_cluster_firewall_rules, leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention if this lists all aliases globally or per-node, or how it relates to pve_create_firewall_alias or other firewall tools. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('List'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or output format. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list tool, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is minimal but inadequate. It lacks context about what 'groups' are, how results are returned, or any behavioral details. With no annotations and false output schema, more completeness is needed for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it avoids unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all groups' clearly states the action (list) and resource (groups), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'groups' refers to in the PVE context (e.g., user groups, security groups, HA groups) and doesn't distinguish from sibling list tools like pve_list_ha_groups or pve_list_security_groups, making it vague in differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating groups), or compare to other list tools in the sibling set, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'List resource pools' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, what the output format is, or if there are rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase ('List resource pools') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It states the purpose but lacks context on output format, behavioral traits, or usage guidelines. For a list tool, this leaves the agent with incomplete information about what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List resource pools' clearly states the action (list) and resource (resource pools), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what information is listed (e.g., names, IDs, configurations) or distinguish itself from similar list tools like pve_list_nodes or pve_list_storage, making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare with other list tools in the sibling set (e.g., pve_list_nodes, pve_list_storage), leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('List'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, rate limits, output format (e.g., list of objects with IDs), or pagination. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted text. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a list operation in a system with many sibling tools), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a replication job entails, the return structure, or how it fits into the broader Proxmox VE context, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is acceptable here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it appropriately handles the lack of parameters without redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List replication jobs' clearly states the action (list) and resource (replication jobs), which is adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all jobs, filtered by node/storage) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_replication_job' (which likely retrieves a single job), making it vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for browsing all jobs versus using 'pve_get_replication_job' for details on a specific job, or if there are prerequisites like node access. The description offers no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List configured storage' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes, whether results are paginated, or if there are any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the essential information (list storage) and contains no unnecessary verbiage. Every word earns its place in this extremely efficient description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'configured storage' means in this context, what information the listing returns, or how this differs from other storage-related tools in the extensive sibling list. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions no parameters, while the schema has one optional parameter ('type' for filtering). With 100% schema description coverage, the schema adequately documents the parameter. The description adds no value beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage situations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List configured storage' clearly states the action (list) and resource (configured storage), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_storage' or 'pve_list_node_storage', which appear to serve similar listing functions in this Proxmox VE context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple storage-related listing tools in the sibling list (pve_get_storage, pve_list_node_storage, pve_list_node_storage_content), the agent has no indication of which tool to choose for different storage listing scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation but doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether it's read-only, what format the output takes, or if there are any rate limits. For a tool that likely requires node access permissions, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't bury important information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what information is returned about VMs, whether the list includes all VM states, if there's pagination, or what authentication is required. Given the complexity of VM management and the rich sibling tool ecosystem, this description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('node' and 'full'). The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about these parameters beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added by the description when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all VMs on a node'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'pve_list_containers' or 'pve_get_vm_status', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific listing tool versus other VM-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that also retrieve VM information (like pve_get_vm_status, pve_get_vm_config, pve_list_vm_snapshots), the description offers no context about when this listing tool is appropriate versus when other tools might be better suited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Migrate' implies a potentially disruptive operation, but the description doesn't mention whether this requires downtime, affects container state, has permission requirements, or what happens on failure. It lacks critical behavioral context needed for safe invocation of a migration tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise at 4 words, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy. It follows an optimal verb-noun structure that communicates the essential purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex migration operation with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what migration entails, potential impacts, success/failure conditions, or return values. The agent lacks sufficient context to understand the operation's consequences and appropriate usage scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Migrate') and resource ('container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'pve_migrate_vm' by specifying container migration rather than VM migration. However, it doesn't specify what 'migrate' entails in this context beyond moving to another node.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like container state requirements), compare with 'pve_migrate_vm' for VMs, or indicate when migration is appropriate versus other operations like cloning or backup. The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether migration is disruptive (e.g., downtime implications), permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a complex operation like VM migration, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex VM migration tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information about behavioral implications, error handling, return values, or operational constraints that are critical for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying migration involves source and target nodes, which is already clear from parameter names. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Migrate') and resource ('VM'), specifying the action of moving a virtual machine to another node. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pve_move_vm_disk' (which moves disks) and 'pve_clone_vm' (which creates copies), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'pve_migrate_container' (for containers vs VMs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'pve_migrate_container' for containers or 'pve_move_vm_disk' for disk migration. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing considerations, or any 'when-not-to-use' scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a 'move' which implies mutation and potential data transfer, but doesn't mention critical behaviors: whether the VM must be stopped, if it's destructive to the source (hinted by the 'delete' parameter but not explained), performance impact, error conditions, or what happens on failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. No unnecessary words or redundant information are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool that moves VM disks (a potentially disruptive operation), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it lacks critical information: prerequisites (e.g., VM state), side effects, error handling, and what the tool returns. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'disk' and 'storage' are involved in the move. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'format' interacts with storage type) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Move VM disk to different storage' clearly states the action (move) and resource (VM disk) with the destination (different storage). It's specific enough to understand the core function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like pve_migrate_vm or pve_resize_vm_disk which might involve disk operations in different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., VM state, storage availability), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like pve_migrate_vm (which moves entire VMs) or pve_resize_vm_disk (which resizes disks). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires administrative privileges, what happens if some VMs/containers fail to start, if there's a startup order, timeout behavior, or any side effects on node resources. The 'force' parameter hints at potential issues but isn't explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that performs a potentially impactful bulk operation on virtual infrastructure with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address safety considerations, error handling, performance implications, or what constitutes successful completion. The context demands more guidance for responsible use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying bulk operation through 'all VMs and containers.' It doesn't explain the relationship between 'node' parameter and the scope, or clarify when to use the optional 'vms' parameter versus the default 'all' behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start') and target resources ('all VMs and containers on node'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_start_vm' or 'pve_start_container' that start individual resources, though the 'all' keyword implies a bulk operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like starting individual VMs/containers or using other node management tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios for bulk starting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Stop') but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a graceful shutdown or forceful kill (though 'force_stop' parameter hints at this), potential downtime impact, permissions required, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Stop all VMs and containers on node'—front-loading the core action and scope. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's high complexity (stopping all resources on a node, which is a destructive operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover safety warnings, return values, error conditions, or dependencies, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'vms' overrides 'all' behavior) or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop') and target resources ('all VMs and containers on node'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_stop_container' or 'pve_stop_vm' which stop individual resources, though the 'all' scope is implied.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pve_shutdown_container' or 'pve_stop_vm' for individual resources, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts. Usage is implied by the 'all' scope but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Order new ACME certificate' implies a write operation that may involve external ACME services, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or if it triggers certificate installation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses precise terminology ('ACME certificate'). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'ordering' entails (e.g., ACME challenge process), what the return value might be (success/failure, certificate details), or error conditions. Given the complexity of certificate operations, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('node' and 'force') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., what 'force' means in practice or node naming conventions). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Order new ACME certificate' clearly states the action (order) and resource (ACME certificate), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_renew_node_certificate' or 'pve_list_node_certificates', but the verb 'order' suggests initial acquisition rather than renewal or listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., ACME configuration), when to use 'force' renewal, or how it differs from 'pve_renew_node_certificate' (a clear sibling). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'hard reset' which implies forceful, immediate power cycling, but doesn't detail consequences like potential data corruption, interruption of services, or that it mimics pulling the plug. Critical behavioral aspects like permissions required, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, or error conditions are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation like a hard reset with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover critical context such as what the tool returns (e.g., task ID, success status), error handling, prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running), or safety warnings. The combination of high-risk action and lack of structured metadata demands more descriptive completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters like what 'node' refers to in the Proxmox context, what VM IDs are, or when to use 'skiplock'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reset') and target resource ('a virtual machine') with specificity about the reset type ('hard reset'), which distinguishes it from softer reboots. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pve_reboot_vm or pve_stop_vm/start_vm, which would require more comparative context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like pve_reboot_vm (soft reboot) or pve_stop_vm/pve_start_vm (graceful shutdown/start). The description implies a forceful reset but doesn't specify scenarios where this is appropriate or warn against potential data loss or disruption.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Resume' implies a state change (from suspended to running), the description doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, whether this action is reversible, potential side effects, or what happens if the container isn't suspended. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of resuming a container (a mutation operation), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool safely and effectively. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies system state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('node' and 'vmid'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Resume') and resource ('a suspended container'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_start_container' or 'pve_resume_vm', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool versus similar ones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the container must be suspended), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'pve_start_container' (for starting from stopped state) or 'pve_resume_vm' (for virtual machines). This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('resume') but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., network reconnection), or error conditions (e.g., if the VM isn't suspended). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Resume a suspended virtual machine'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in a tool definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool for resuming VMs), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or error handling, nor does it explain the return value or success criteria. For a tool that changes system state, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (node, vmid, nocheck, skiplock) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as explaining what 'nocheck' or 'skiplock' do in practice or providing examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Resume a suspended virtual machine' clearly states the verb ('resume') and resource ('suspended virtual machine'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_resume_container' or 'pve_start_vm' (which might start a stopped VM rather than resume a suspended one), so it doesn't reach the highest level of sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the VM must be in a suspended state), exclusions (e.g., not for stopped VMs), or refer to sibling tools like 'pve_start_vm' for different scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Revert' implies a destructive operation that undoes changes, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if it's irreversible, what happens to the node during the revert, or if there are rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral aspects unclear for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase: 'Revert pending network changes'. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately concise for a tool with a simple purpose and one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'pending network changes' are, the revert's effect on node operations, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that could impact network configuration, this minimal description is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'node' clearly documented as 'Node name'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but with only one well-documented parameter, the baseline is high. A score of 4 reflects that the schema adequately covers the parameter semantics without needing extra description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Revert pending network changes' clearly states the action (revert) and target (pending network changes), but it's somewhat vague about scope and mechanism. It doesn't specify what 'pending network changes' are or how they differ from applied changes, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'pve_apply_node_network' beyond the verb difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that pending changes must exist), consequences of reverting, or when to choose this over 'pve_apply_node_network' (which likely applies pending changes). Without this context, an agent might misuse the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires administrative privileges, whether changes are persistent across reboots, potential system impacts, or error conditions. It also doesn't mention that DNS2 and DNS3 are optional parameters (only node and search are required).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward configuration tool and gets directly to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a system configuration mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what successful execution looks like, whether changes require node restart, potential side effects, or error handling. The agent lacks crucial context for safe and effective use of this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples (e.g., IP addresses for DNS servers) or relationships between parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set node DNS configuration' clearly states the action (set) and target resource (node DNS configuration). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_get_node_dns (read) and pve_set_node_time (different configuration type), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other node configuration tools like pve_set_cluster_firewall_options.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when DNS configuration should be updated, or what happens after setting (e.g., whether changes take effect immediately). It also doesn't reference the complementary pve_get_node_dns tool for checking current configuration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set node timezone' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's destructive (e.g., affects running services), what happens on failure, or if there are rate limits. For a system configuration tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise with just three words that directly convey the core functionality. There's zero wasted language, and it's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information. This is an excellent example of efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool that changes system configuration with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'setting the timezone' entails (e.g., does it require a reboot?), what permissions are needed, potential side effects, or what constitutes success/failure. The agent would have significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters). The schema already documents 'node' as 'Node name' and 'timezone' as 'Timezone (e.g., Europe/London)', so the description provides no additional semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Set') and resource ('node timezone'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_set_node_dns' or 'pve_set_cluster_firewall_options' which also modify node/cluster settings, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself within the family of 'set' operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing administrative access), when this operation is appropriate (e.g., during maintenance windows), or what happens if the timezone is invalid. With many sibling tools available, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'graceful' shutdown but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to running processes, if data loss is possible, or how it interacts with timeouts and forceStop. The description is too minimal for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place: 'Shutdown' (action), 'container' (resource), 'graceful' (key behavioral trait). No wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover prerequisites, side effects, error conditions, or what 'graceful' entails. Given the complexity of shutting down a container, more context is needed for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying graceful behavior relates to timeout/forceStop, but doesn't explain their interaction. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Shutdown') and resource ('a container'), specifying it's a graceful operation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pve_stop_container' (which likely implies forceful stop) and 'pve_reboot_container', but doesn't explicitly differentiate them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'pve_stop_container' or 'pve_reboot_container'. The description mentions 'graceful' but doesn't explain when graceful shutdown is preferred or what happens if it fails.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'force,' hinting at abrupt termination, but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's reversible, side effects (e.g., data loss), or error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with a single phrase ('Stop a container (force)'), front-loaded and zero waste. Every word earns its place by conveying core action and key behavioral trait.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Incomplete for a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description lacks critical context: what 'force' entails operationally, success/failure indicators, safety warnings, or comparison to sibling tools. It's minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about important behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (node, vmid, skiplock). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying forceful action, which doesn't clarify parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop') and target ('a container'), with the qualifier '(force)' indicating forceful termination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pve_shutdown_container' (graceful shutdown) and 'pve_reboot_container' (restart). However, it doesn't specify the exact difference between 'stop' and 'shutdown' beyond 'force,' leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'pve_shutdown_container' (graceful) or 'pve_reboot_container' (restart). The '(force)' hint implies urgency or unresponsiveness, but no clear when/when-not rules or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'force' which hints at non-graceful behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this requires admin permissions, if it's destructive (risk of data loss), what happens to dependent services, or typical error conditions. The description is too sparse for a mutation tool with safety implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with just three words plus parenthetical. Every element earns its place: 'Stop' (action), 'a virtual machine' (resource), '(force)' (key behavioral modifier. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'force' entails operationally, what permissions are required, what the typical response looks like, or error conditions. The agent lacks crucial context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers parameter purposes, though the description doesn't enhance understanding of how parameters interact with the 'force' behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop') and resource ('a virtual machine'), with the parenthetical '(force)' adding specificity about the forceful nature. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pve_shutdown_vm' (graceful shutdown) and 'pve_stop_container' (different resource type), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'pve_shutdown_vm' (graceful) or 'pve_stop_container' (for containers). The description implies forceful stopping but doesn't specify scenarios where this is appropriate or warn about potential data loss or service interruption.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool 'returns upload URL info', which adds some behavioral context about the output. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a mutation (likely yes, as it uploads), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, leaving significant gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Upload ISO or template to storage') and includes the return value. It avoids unnecessary words, making it appropriately sized, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an upload operation with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions), usage context, and error handling, making it inadequate for a tool that likely involves mutation and network operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (node, storage, content, filename) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by hinting at the content types ('ISO or template'), which aligns with the enum in the schema, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Upload') and resource ('ISO or template to storage'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_download_url_to_storage', which handles downloads rather than uploads, but this distinction is only implied by the verb choice rather than explicitly stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'pve_download_url_to_storage' for downloads or other storage-related tools. It mentions the return value ('returns upload URL info'), but this doesn't help in selecting the tool over others in the context of the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get cluster status information' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the information is returned in, whether it's real-time or cached data, or if there are any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters. Every word earns its place by conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide enough context about what 'cluster status information' includes or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool in a complex system with many siblings, more differentiation would be helpful, but the basic purpose is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, which is appropriate. It doesn't add parameter semantics beyond the schema, but with no parameters, this isn't necessary. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get cluster status information' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'cluster status information', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from similar sibling tools like 'pve_cluster_resources', 'pve_cluster_log', or 'pve_cluster_tasks', which also retrieve cluster-related information. The description is vague about what specific 'status information' it provides compared to these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools that also retrieve cluster data (e.g., 'pve_cluster_resources', 'pve_cluster_log'), the agent is left with no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get network interface configuration', which implies a read-only operation but doesn't confirm safety (e.g., no destructive effects), disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation and front-loads the core action ('Get network interface configuration'), making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, auth) and return values, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly in context with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions ('Node name' and 'Interface name'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'network interface configuration', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_node_networks' (which likely lists all networks) or 'pve_update_node_network' (which modifies them), leaving some ambiguity about when this specific 'get' operation is appropriate versus other network-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'pve_list_node_networks' (for listing all networks) and 'pve_update_node_network' (for modifications), the agent receives no explicit or implied direction on selecting this specific 'get' operation for retrieving configuration details of a single interface.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all backup jobs' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes (e.g., list of names vs. detailed objects), or if there are any rate limits or pagination considerations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description 'List all backup jobs' is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'backup jobs' entail in this context (e.g., Proxmox VE backup jobs), what the return value looks like, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool in a complex system like Proxmox with many sibling tools, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't incorrectly suggest any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema already indicates no inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all backup jobs' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('backup jobs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_backup_job' (which presumably gets details of a specific job) or 'pve_create_backup_job' (which creates new jobs), so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to choose this over 'pve_get_backup_job' (for specific job details) or 'pve_list_replication_jobs' (for a different type of job), nor does it indicate prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, output format (e.g., JSON list), potential errors (e.g., if cluster is unavailable), or whether it's idempotent. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('List cluster IP sets') with zero waste. It's front-loaded and directly conveys the core action, making it easy to parse. No unnecessary words or structural issues are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple read operation, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'cluster IP sets' entails (e.g., CIDR blocks, aliases), the return structure, or error handling. For a tool in a complex system like Proxmox VE, more context is needed to ensure correct usage beyond the basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs without requiring description compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List cluster IP sets' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('cluster IP sets'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pve_create_ipset' by indicating a read operation rather than creation. However, it doesn't specify if this lists all IP sets across the entire cluster or requires node specification, which could be more precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., cluster access), compare to related tools like 'pve_list_firewall_aliases' or 'pve_list_security_groups', or indicate if it's for monitoring or configuration purposes. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of interfaces with properties). This leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward listing tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, output structure) and usage context, though the schema covers parameters well. This results in a middling score with clear room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering by 'type' is optional (since 'node' is required). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List node network interfaces' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('node network interfaces'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_node_network' (singular vs. plural) or explain the scope beyond what the name implies, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention siblings like 'pve_get_node_network' (for single interface details) or 'pve_create_node_network' (for creation), leaving the agent to infer usage from naming patterns alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all roles' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, what format the output takes (e.g., list, array, paginated), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description 'List all roles' is extremely concise—three words that directly convey the core action. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, leaving no wasted words. This is an example of efficient communication where every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of roles. It doesn't explain what 'roles' are in this context (e.g., user roles in Proxmox VE), the output format, or any behavioral details like error conditions. For a simple list tool, it's minimally adequate but misses important context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents that no inputs are required. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no parameters by not mentioning any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all roles' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('roles'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other list tools (like list_users, list_groups) by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't specify what system or context these roles belong to (e.g., Proxmox VE), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication), when this tool is appropriate versus other role-related tools (like get_role or create_role), or any limitations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'via ACPI' which hints at graceful reboot behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive to VM state, what happens during timeout, or what the expected response/confirmation looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by including key behavioral context (e.g., 'Gracefully reboot...') rather than just technical implementation detail ('via ACPI').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'reboot via ACPI' means operationally, what permissions are needed, what happens on failure, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of VM management and lack of structured safety hints, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (node, vmid, timeout). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'Node name' refers to or typical timeout values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reboot') and resource ('a virtual machine'), with specific technical detail ('via ACPI') that distinguishes it from other reboot methods. It differentiates from siblings like pve_reset_vm (hard reset) and pve_shutdown_vm (shutdown instead of reboot).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like pve_reset_vm or pve_shutdown_vm. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running), nor does it explain what 'via ACPI' means in practical terms for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'List recent cluster tasks', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what 'recent' means (e.g., time range, limit), whether it's paginated, or if it requires specific permissions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a basic listing operation. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., what data is returned) and behavioral context (e.g., how 'recent' is defined), which would be helpful for completeness. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it could hint at implicit filters (e.g., 'recent' might imply a default time window). Since no parameters exist, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as there's nothing to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('recent cluster tasks'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_node_tasks' or 'pve_get_node_task_status', which might handle similar task-related operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to tasks (e.g., 'pve_list_node_tasks', 'pve_get_node_task_status'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, output format, pagination, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase ('List authentication domains/realms') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loads the essential action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., what 'domains/realms' means in this system, output format). For a list tool with no structured metadata, it should provide more context about the returned data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for zero parameters. No additional parameter information is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('authentication domains/realms'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on domains/realms rather than other entities like VMs, containers, or nodes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list tools (e.g., pve_list_users, pve_list_groups) beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare it to other list tools (e.g., pve_list_users for user domains). Without any usage context, the agent must infer based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes offline nodes, or provides error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space, making it ideal for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on return format (e.g., list structure, node attributes) and behavioral context, which could help the agent use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly implies no filtering or options are needed. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('all cluster nodes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_node_networks' or 'pve_list_node_storage', which also list specific node-related resources, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to other listing tools like 'pve_list_containers' or 'pve_list_vms', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('List'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, returns paginated results, or includes details like group rules or members. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly without any fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide context on the return format (e.g., list structure, fields included) or how it fits into the broader firewall management system, leaving gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given as it compensates adequately by not introducing unnecessary information, though it doesn't exceed expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('firewall security groups'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_firewall_aliases' or 'pve_list_cluster_firewall_rules', which would require specifying what makes security groups distinct in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools related to firewall management (e.g., 'pve_create_security_group', 'pve_list_firewall_aliases'), the description lacks context about whether this lists all security groups globally, per node, or in another scope, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'graceful via ACPI' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the VM is unresponsive, or if there are side effects on storage or locks. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and method, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or what the agent should expect after invocation, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying graceful shutdown, which aligns with the schema's 'forceStop' and 'timeout' fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Shutdown') and resource ('a virtual machine'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pve_stop_vm or pve_reboot_vm. It also specifies the method ('graceful via ACPI'), which adds precision beyond just the verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pve_stop_vm or pve_reboot_vm. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as VM state requirements, or contrast with force-stop options, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), which is safe, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or what specific information is returned (e.g., API version number, compatibility details). It adds some context by specifying 'API version information' but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get Proxmox VE API version information'. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It states what the tool does but does not explain the return format or potential use cases, leaving gaps in completeness for an agent that might need more context to interpret results effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, which is acceptable here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it compensates for the lack of parameters by being straightforward, though it could briefly note the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Proxmox VE API version information' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Proxmox VE API version information', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_node_version', which might retrieve node-specific version details, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'pve_get_node_version' for node-level version info or other API-related tools. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![proxmox-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Ruashots/proxmox-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Ruashots/proxmox-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![proxmox-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Ruashots/proxmox-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Ruashots/proxmox-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Ruashots/proxmox-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server