pve_guest_agent_network

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the data originates from the QEMU guest agent, but omits what happens when the agent is absent or not running — a common failure mode for this class of tool.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with zero filler and the key concept front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves the definition thin overall.

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 explained. However, for a tool whose whole value depends on guest-agent availability, the missing prerequisites and undocumented parameters leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether the call will succeed.

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 neither parameter is documented structurally, and the description does not compensate. It says nothing about 'vmid' (required) or 'node' (optional, nullable) — for instance whether node can be omitted or how it is resolved.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('network interfaces reported by the QEMU guest agent'), making the tool's scope immediately clear. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from, though the contrast with pve_guest_agent_osinfo is implicit in 'network interfaces'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as the VM needing to be running with the QEMU guest agent installed. The agent must infer all usage conditions from the tool name alone.

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