pve_get_vm_config

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify if this requires specific permissions, whether it returns sensitive data, or if there are rate limits. It mentions nothing about error conditions (e.g., invalid VM ID) or output format, leaving the agent with minimal context.

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, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it lacks necessary detail for effective tool use, slightly reducing its utility despite the brevity.

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 complexity of VM configuration retrieval (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what configuration data is returned, how to interpret it, or any behavioral nuances. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly in a Proxmox VE 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%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters (node, vmid, current, snapshot). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'current' interacts with 'snapshot' or typical values for 'node'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 VM configuration' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_get_vm_config'. While it indicates a read operation on VM configuration, it lacks specificity about what configuration is retrieved (e.g., hardware settings, network config, or all details) and doesn't distinguish it from similar siblings like 'pve_get_container_config' or 'pve_get_vm_status'.

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., VM must exist), differentiate from other 'get' tools (e.g., 'pve_get_vm_status' for runtime state vs. config), or specify use cases like auditing or modification planning.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.