pdm_pve_lxc_list

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral info. It states the output shape matches 'PVE lxc list' and that it requires PROXIMO_PDM_* config, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects. The 'DIAGNOSE' hint is helpful but not definitive.

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?

Description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and parameter explanations. No fluff, every sentence adds value. Efficient and well-structured.

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 an output schema exists, return values are covered. The description provides purpose, parameter meanings, and config requirement. However, it lacks behavioral context like read-only safety, error handling, or when to use this over other LXC tools. Adequate but not thorough.

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 low (33%), but the description explicitly explains the 'remote' and 'node' parameters with their meanings, adding value beyond the schema. For 'proximo_target', the schema already has description, so coverage is good overall.

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. The verb 'list' and resource 'LXC containers' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like pdm_pve_lxc_config or pdm_pve_lxc_migrate which have different actions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or provide any decision context, such as comparing with pdm_pve_lxc_config or pdm_pve_qemu_list. The 'DIAGNOSE (LOW)' tag implies low risk but is not explicit.

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