pve_get_vm_snapshot_config

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 snapshot configuration' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify if this requires permissions, returns detailed or summary data, or has side effects (e.g., triggering updates). It lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or output format, 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 a single, efficient sentence ('Get snapshot configuration') with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the action, making it easy to parse. Every word serves a purpose, adhering to the principle of conciseness without being overly sparse in this context.

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 (3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' includes (e.g., metadata, settings), the return format, or any behavioral aspects like permissions or errors. For a tool that likely returns structured data about snapshots, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 names and descriptions (node name, VM ID, snapshot name). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining relationships between parameters or valid formats. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help 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 snapshot configuration' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('snapshot configuration'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'configuration' entails (e.g., metadata, settings, state) and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'pve_list_vm_snapshots' (which might list snapshots) or 'pve_get_vm_config' (which gets VM config). It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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 an existing snapshot), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'pve_list_vm_snapshots' or 'pve_get_vm_config'. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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