pdm_pve_qemu_config

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

With no annotations, description discloses read-only behavior via 'DIAGNOSE' and highlights critical state parameter requirement. However, it lacks details on return format, side effects, or limits. The live-proven date adds confidence.

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 plus a list-like explanation, front-loaded with key info. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 output schema exists, return values are covered. Description explains 5 of 6 parameters well, missing only proximo_target. The critical state parameter is thoroughly explained, but error conditions beyond state omission are absent.

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 (17%), but description explains remote, vmid, node, snapshot, and state in plain terms, adding significant meaning beyond the schema. Proximo_target is only in schema, but coverage is still 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?

Description clearly states verb 'get', resource 'VM config', and context 'from a PDM-registered PVE remote'. The 'DIAGNOSE (LOW)' prefix indicates low-impact diagnostic tool, distinguishing it from direct PVE tools like pve_guest_config_get and sibling pdm_pve_lxc_config.

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?

Description implies usage for low-risk diagnostics via 'DIAGNOSE (LOW)' and mentions prerequisite 'Needs PROXIMO_PDM_* config', but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide comparisons to alternative tools like pve_guest_config_get.

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