pve_list_snapshots

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. The verb "List" does implicitly signal a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is the most important behavioral fact here, but the description never states that operations are side-effect free, whether permissions or node access are required, or whether the VM must be running.

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 core purpose sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, with parameter notes following in a compact Args block. The structure is slightly verbose for two fields but nothing is padding.

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 values need not be described, and only two simple parameters are involved. The remaining gap is behavioral and procedural: node's optionality is left unexplained and there is no note about permissions, node scoping, or what the "hierarchy" portion of the result represents.

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 is doing the documentation work: it identifies vmid as the target VM or container ID and node as an optional node name, which is meaningfully better than bare field titles. However, it does not explain the semantics of node's optionality (auto-resolution from vmid?), its format, or whether vmid is unique cluster-wide or only within a node.

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 uses a specific verb ("List") plus resource ("snapshots and hierarchy") and a clear target scope ("for a VM or LXC container"), which cleanly separates it from the sibling snapshot mutators such as pve_create_snapshot, pve_delete_snapshot and pve_rollback_snapshot. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions; the agent must infer that this is the discovery step preceding a rollback or delete. The "Optional node name" parameter is mentioned without saying when it should be supplied or what happens if it is omitted, leaving the main usage decision unaddressed.

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