pve_get_vm

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that status and config are returned; it does not discuss permissions, error behavior, or what 'config' includes.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is arguably too terse for four undocumented parameters, but the sentence itself is efficient.

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?

Output schema and read-only annotations carry the return-shape and safety burden, but with 0% schema description coverage the description should compensate for parameter meaning and does not. It is minimally adequate for a simple getter but leaves real gaps around node/vmid/kind and include_config.

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%, yet the description does not define vmid, node, kind, or include_config. At best 'VM or container' hints at the kind enum and 'and config' hints at include_config, leaving required identifiers and defaults unexplained.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'status (and config) of a VM or container' are specific and actionable. It does not explicitly distinguish this from pve_list_vms or pve_node_status, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 use when you have a specific VM/container and need its current status, but it names no alternatives or when-not conditions. There is no guidance on choosing between this, pve_list_vms, or pve_node_status.

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