pve_guest_agent_osinfo

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 the data source (the guest agent, not Proxmox's own config), which hints at the dependency, but says nothing about behavior when the agent is absent or the VM is stopped.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is lean, though the brevity leaves key operational details unstated.

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 needn't be explained, and the read-only annotations cover safety. However, for a tool that depends on guest-agent availability and has an undocumented optional 'node' parameter, the description omits enough that an agent could call it incorrectly.

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% for two parameters, so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing: neither 'vmid' nor the optional 'node' (which defaults to null, leaving resolution ambiguous) is mentioned. An agent must guess how the node is determined when omitted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read OS information' from the QEMU guest agent. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling pve_guest_agent_network, though the description never explicitly names that sibling or contrast.

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 implied by the name and the phrase 'reported by the QEMU guest agent', but the description never states the prerequisite (guest agent installed and running in the VM) or when to prefer this over pve_get_vm for OS details. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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