pikvm_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden well by disclosing the read-versus-write confirmation model, the extra phrase requirement for destructive actions, and that login/websocket paths are blocked. It leaves some behavioral details implicit, such as how body content is interpreted and whether errors are returned differently.

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 short, front-loaded, and organized in functional lines. Every sentence adds operational meaning without repetition.

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?

It covers the critical safety and routing behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, for an 8-parameter generic API caller with no annotations, the missing body/server/max_chars semantics leave meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains method, path, params, confirm, and confirm_phrase, but says nothing about body, server, or max_chars, leaving important parameters undocumented.

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 states a clear verb and scope: call any PiKVM web API path, with a pointer to pikvm_endpoints for available paths. It is distinguishable as the generic escape hatch, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with dedicated siblings such as pikvm_power or pikvm_snapshot.

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?

It gives clear operational rules: method choices, path must start with /api/, reads execute immediately, changes require confirm=true, and destructive actions require confirm_phrase equal to the path. It does not say when to prefer this generic tool over dedicated sibling tools.

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