pve_list_node_networks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of interfaces with properties). This leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.

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 that front-loads the core purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward listing tool, 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?

For a simple listing tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, output structure) and usage context, though the schema covers parameters well. This results in a middling score with clear room for improvement.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering by 'type' is optional (since 'node' is required). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 node network interfaces' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('node network interfaces'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_node_network' (singular vs. plural) or explain the scope beyond what the name implies, preventing a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention siblings like 'pve_get_node_network' (for single interface details) or 'pve_create_node_network' (for creation), leaving the agent to infer usage from naming patterns alone.

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