pve_apt_changelog

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.