pdm_pve_resources

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It implies a read operation via 'list' and mentions configuration requirements, but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or error handling (e.g., invalid remote). The 'DIAGNOSE (LOW)' label adds minimal context.

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 five lines long, using a structured format with labels for parameters and prerequisites. The 'live-proven 2026-06-27' detail is somewhat extraneous, but overall it is concise and front-loaded with key information.

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?

With an output schema (not shown) and three parameters, the description covers the basics: resource listing, required config, and filter possibilities. However, it lacks details on the output shape beyond a vague reference, and does not explain potential errors or edge cases, which a completeness-focused description would include.

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 only 33% (proximo_target described in schema). The description adds meaning for 'remote' (source from pdm_remotes_list) and 'kind' (example filter values vm, storage, node, sdn), which compensates for the schema gaps. This helps the agent understand parameter usage.

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 'list resources on a PDM-registered PVE remote', specifying the action and target. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pdm_pve_lxc_list or pdm_pve_qemu_list, which list specific resource types, missing a chance to clarify that this tool lists all resource types.

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 a prerequisite ('Needs PROXIMO_PDM_* config') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus other resource listing siblings. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support.

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