pve_list_storage_pools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the description usefully discloses what the result contains (enabled content types, total/used/free GB), but it says nothing about permissions required, cluster-wide aggregation behavior when node is empty, or result size/pagination.

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 purpose and returned fields are front-loaded in one dense sentence, followed by a single Args line for the only parameter. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the storage-backend and content-type lists earn their space by telling the agent what it will receive.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and has an output schema, so return values need not be spelled out; the description nonetheless summarizes them. The only residual gap is what 'on a node or cluster' means operationally when node is omitted — whether a single node or the whole cluster is enumerated.

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, and it does: it explains that 'node' is the target node name and that an empty value defaults to the cluster default node. That is the key semantic an agent needs for the single optional parameter, though it does not clarify the accepted name format.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List all configured storage pools') and enumerates the concrete backends covered (ZFS, LVM-Thin, Directory, NFS, Ceph), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like pve_list_nodes or pve_list_backups, but the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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: 'on a node or cluster' plus the note that an empty node falls back to the cluster default tells the agent how to scope the call, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. An agent can infer this is the read-only inventory call, but must do the inference itself.

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