pve_list_firewall_aliases

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 it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, returns paginated results, or includes metadata like alias types. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.

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—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted space or redundant information, making it efficient for quick comprehension, though it sacrifices detail for 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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks context on what firewall aliases are, the scope of listing (e.g., node-specific or cluster-wide), or example output, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in a broader system 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the absence of parameters, warranting a baseline score of 4 as it doesn't mislead or omit necessary information.

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 'List firewall aliases' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('firewall aliases'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what firewall aliases are (e.g., IP/network groupings in Proxmox) or distinguish this tool from similar list tools like pve_list_ipsets or pve_list_cluster_firewall_rules, leaving room for ambiguity.

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. For example, it doesn't mention if this lists all aliases globally or per-node, or how it relates to pve_create_firewall_alias or other firewall tools. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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