pve_cluster_nextid

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.