pve_get_node_pci

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data content (IOMMU groups, vendor, class) but says nothing about read-only behavior, permissions, error cases, or potential performance implications. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single concise phrase with no redundant words, earning its place. It is slightly under-specified as a sentence fragment but remains efficient and front-loaded.

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 has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere, but the description fails to explain the required input parameter. Given the low complexity, a simple mention of node would have made this more complete.

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% and the description does not mention the 'node' parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no value in explaining accepted values, format, or semantics.

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 identifies the specific resource (PCI devices) and scope (node), and the passthrough context distinguishes it from sibling get_ tools. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get', making the purpose slightly less direct.

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 implies usage in PCI passthrough scenarios ('available for passthrough') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. No sibling differentiation is provided.

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