pve_apt_versions

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.