proxmox_run_host_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions execution via SSH (implying potential security/permission requirements), it doesn't address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only vs. destructive operation, error handling, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and immediately communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 command execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what kind of commands are appropriate, security implications, expected output format, error conditions, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would have significant gaps in understanding how to properly use this tool.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'command' parameter. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., examples of valid commands, command syntax constraints, or execution environment details). The baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 clearly states the action ('Execute a command') and target ('on the Proxmox host via SSH'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, with no sibling tools mentioned, there's no opportunity to demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or constraints. It simply states what the tool does without any context about appropriate use cases or limitations.

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