pve_acl_list

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

Declares the tool as read-only and lists the return fields (path, roleid, principal, type, propagate flag). With no annotations provided, the description properly conveys that the operation is safe and non-destructive. Misses mentioning prerequisites or error conditions, but overall informative.

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 earning its place: first states purpose and read-only nature, second lists return fields, third gives usage guidelines. No fluff, 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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, read-only behavior, return fields, and related tools. The output schema handles return details, so no gap.

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?

The only parameter (proximo_target) is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic meaning for this parameter, so it meets the baseline without extra 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 'List all ACL entries on the Proxmox cluster (read-only).' It identifies the specific verb (list), resource (ACL entries), and scope (cluster), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pve_acl_modify and pve_overbroad_grants.

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?

Explicitly directs when to use alternative tools: 'Use pve_acl_modify to grant/revoke; use pve_overbroad_grants to flag Administrator or root-path grants.' This provides clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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