pve_get_node_network

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.