pve_get_container_config

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.