pdm_pve_lxc_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and fully discloses read-only nature, no state change, proxied through PDM, return shape (list of dicts like PVE's lxc list with date stamp), and optional node filtering.

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 sentences, each with clear purpose: purpose statement, behavioral detail, and alternatives/prerequisite. No fluff, well-structured and front-loaded.

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 3 params and output schema existence, the description covers purpose, return shape, alternative tools, and prerequisites. It is complete for a list tool with moderate sibling complexity.

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 context beyond schema: explains node filters to one node, remote from pdm_remotes_list, proximo_target for multi-target config, and that output matches PVE's lxc list. This adds moderate value.

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 lists LXC containers across a PDM-registered PVE remote (cluster-wide), proxied through PDM. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning alternatives (pdm_pve_lxc_config for one container's config, pve_list_guests for direct cluster query).

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 explicit when-to-use (list LXC containers), when-not-to-use (for single container config use pdm_pve_lxc_config; for direct query use pve_list_guests), and a prerequisite (needs PROXIMO_PDM_* config).

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