pve_get_guest_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: it discloses the underlying discovery mechanism (QEMU Guest Agent for VMs, container interface discovery for LXC), which tells an agent the data is live rather than cached and implies an in-guest dependency. It stops short of stating the guest-agent-must-be-running failure mode or any permission requirements.

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 first sentence is front-loaded with the resource and return fields, and the second adds the mechanism detail. The Args block is docstring boilerplate but compact and non-redundant; nothing here is wasted, though the two parameters could be folded into prose rather than a list.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is correctly omitted, and the description covers purpose, mechanism, and both parameters. The remaining gap is behavioral: no note on guest-agent prerequisites or what an empty/partial result means, which matters for a tool whose success depends on in-guest software.

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 0%, so the description must compensate: it does define vmid as the target VM or LXC Container ID, which is genuinely useful. However, 'node: Optional node name' merely restates the schema title and default without explaining what the node parameter affects or why it might be needed.

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 names a specific verb (retrieve) and the exact resource and fields returned (live IPv4/IPv6 addresses, MAC addresses, network interfaces) scoped to a guest VM/LXC. It is unambiguous about what the tool produces, though it never contrasts itself with a sibling such as pve_exec_guest_command run inside the guest.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is a read for gathering a guest's network configuration. The mention that VMs go through the QEMU Guest Agent hints at a prerequisite but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what to do if the guest agent is unavailable.

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