pdm_pve_lxc_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares READ-ONLY, no state change, returns a dict, and explains the state parameter's necessity (400 if omitted). It could be improved by detailing specific return fields, but output schema exists.

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 concise with 5 sentences, each serving a purpose. It front-loads the read-only nature, then purpose, then parameter notes, then alternative, then config requirement. No wasted words.

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 complexity and the presence of sibling tools, the description covers purpose, usage, alternative, parameter behavior, and config requirements. Output schema exists for return values.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'state' is effectively required despite having a default, and that 'node' and 'snapshot' are optional.

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 it is READ-ONLY and gets an LXC container's config from a PDM-registered PVE remote, proxied through PDM. It distinguishes itself from pve_guest_config_get by specifying the PDM proxy path.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (via PDM) and provides an alternative: 'To query the cluster directly without PDM, use pve_guest_config_get.' Also notes that the 'state' parameter is required by PDM's API.

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