pve_list_vms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation but doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether it's read-only, what format the output takes, or if there are any rate limits. For a tool that likely requires node access permissions, this is insufficient behavioral 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 - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't bury important information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what information is returned about VMs, whether the list includes all VM states, if there's pagination, or what authentication is required. Given the complexity of VM management and the rich sibling tool ecosystem, this description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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 already documents both parameters ('node' and 'full'). The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about these parameters beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added by the description when 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 ('List') and resource ('all VMs on a node'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'pve_list_containers' or 'pve_get_vm_status', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific listing tool versus other VM-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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that also retrieve VM information (like pve_get_vm_status, pve_get_vm_config, pve_list_vm_snapshots), the description offers no context about when this listing tool is appropriate versus when other tools might be better suited.

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