pve_version

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, and the output schema covers the return shape. The description adds that the call is a connectivity probe against 'the connected host,' but says nothing about what happens when the host is unreachable (error vs. degraded response).

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 the resource named first and the usage hint trailing. Nothing redundant, nothing to trim.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, output-schema-backed tool, the description covers purpose and scope adequately. The only meaningful omission is failure behavior on an unreachable host, which matters precisely because the tool is framed as a connectivity check.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema and description are consistent in that no input is expected.

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: 'Return the Proxmox VE version of the connected host.' That is unambiguous and clearly distinct from every sibling (none of which reports a version), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 parenthetical '(connectivity check)' hints at when to reach for it, implying a lightweight health probe before heavier calls. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. pve_cluster_status) for broader cluster health checks.

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