pve_guests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Lista' indicates a non-mutating read operation, and 'de un nodo Proxmox' scopes the call, but no additional behavior is disclosed such as authentication needs, pagination, or failure behavior. This is adequate for a simple list operation but not a detailed behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It conveys the action, the resource, and the scope in its entirety.

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 low complexity of the tool (one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema present), the description is almost complete. It covers what the tool does and which node it targets, while the output schema can describe return values. The only notable omission is explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings, but that is already reflected in the usage-guidelines score.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the single 'node' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'node' refers to a Proxmox node, and that the output is a list of guests, which adds meaning beyond the bare parameter name. It does not specify the node identifier format or valid values, but the required string parameter is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and names the exact resource and scope: QEMU and LXC guests of a Proxmox node. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pve_nodes (lists nodes) and pve_guest_status (reads a single guest's status).

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 intended usage is implied: call this tool when you need to list QEMU and LXC guests on a given Proxmox node. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any excluded contexts, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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