pikvm_config_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the SSH transport, the exact allowlist of readable paths, and — critically — that files with passwords, keys, or 2FA secrets are blocked, which tells the agent about failure modes before it calls. It omits auth prerequisites, connection failure behavior, and truncation behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then default, then constraints. Every sentence adds a new, load-bearing fact with no repetition of the tool name or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The path and safety envelope are well covered. The remaining gap is the multi-server dimension: 'server' defaults to an empty string with no explanation of what that selects, which matters in a toolset with an explicit pikvm_servers listing 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: it documents the meaning and default of 'path' plus the allowed set. However, 'server' (which PiKVM host, meaningful given the pikvm_servers sibling) and 'max_chars' (truncation threshold) are entirely unaddressed in both schema and description, leaving two of three parameters opaque.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Read a PiKVM config file over SSH'), which immediately separates it from the mutation sibling pikvm_config_write. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the alternative read surfaces (pikvm_ssh, pikvm_log), so sibling differentiation is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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 tells the agent the default target ('/etc/kvmd/override.yaml, the file where your own settings live'), which implies the common use case. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus pikvm_ssh or pikvm_log, and no guidance on when to pass a non-default path beyond the allowed list.

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