proxmox_vm_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed status' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., CPU/memory usage, state, uptime), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get detailed status'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource type and scope.

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 complexity (a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed status' entails in the return values, potential error conditions, or how it differs from other status tools. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (node, vmid, type). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or format details. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description, which is appropriate here.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed status of a specific Proxmox VM or container'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'proxmox_list_vms' by focusing on a single VM/container rather than listing all. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other status tools like 'proxmox_status' or 'system_info', which slightly limits sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing node/vmid/type parameters, or compare to siblings like 'proxmox_list_vms' for broader queries or 'proxmox_status' for overall system status. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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