pmg_apt_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly declares read-only nature, smoke-confirm warning (shape not live-verified), notes that upgrades are not exposed, and states config needs. This provides excellent transparency beyond basic semantics.

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 no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds critical context in subsequent sentences. Every sentence provides distinct value (purpose, endpoint, caveat, behavioral note, config requirement).

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 existence of an output schema and the tool's relatively simple nature (list installed versions), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, limitations, and configuration. A slight gap is the lack of mention of error conditions or data format, but the output schema covers return structure.

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%, so the schema already describes both parameters (node, proximo_target) adequately. The description does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema, such as clarifying default behavior or providing examples, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 'get installed versions of important Proxmox packages on a PMG node', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying PMG (not PVE/PBS) and mentioning it's read-only and visibility-only.

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 explicitly marks tool as READ-ONLY and states it only governs visibility, with upgrades happening at console. It mentions config requirements (PROXIMO_PMG_*). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like pmg_apt_updates_list, leaving the agent to infer when to use this vs. other apt tools.

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