pve_get_node_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral expectations, but it only lists output fields. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only query, what permissions are needed, or any error or rate-limit behavior. The 'get' action implies read-only but is not disclosed.

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 one short, information-dense sentence that front-loads the resource ('all NICs and bridges') and enumerates key fields. There is no wasted wording.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description captures the essential return content. However, it omits usage context and parameter semantics, leaving it slightly incomplete despite low complexity.

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?

The single 'node' parameter has zero schema description coverage, and the description only says 'on a node,' adding little beyond the schema's 'Node' title. It does not specify node name format, accepted values, or that the parameter is required.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving all NICs and bridges on a node, listing specific attributes such as IP, netmask, gateway, MAC, and bridge ports. This differentiates it from sibling tools focused on disks, PCI, services, and other node resources.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The name and description imply it is for node network inspection, but no exclusions or alternative pointers are given.

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