proxmox_list_vms

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. It states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, pagination (if applicable for large result sets), or the format/structure of the returned list. For a tool that likely interacts with a production system, this is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('List all Proxmox VMs and containers') and adds necessary scope clarification ('across all nodes'). Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does. However, for a tool that likely returns structured data about system resources, the lack of output schema means the description should ideally hint at the return format or data structure, which it doesn't. It's adequate but leaves gaps about what the agent can expect from the response.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It correctly focuses on the tool's function without unnecessary parameter explanations, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('List') and the resource ('all Proxmox VMs and containers across all nodes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'proxmox_status' and 'proxmox_vm_status' by focusing specifically on enumeration rather than status checking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential non-sibling alternatives like filtered listing tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for comprehensive listing, there's no mention of when to choose this over more specific tools like 'proxmox_vm_status' for individual VM details or filtered approaches. The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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