pve_agent_exec

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that it is a mutation ('no undo primitive'), async with polling, dry-run default, and expected return values (status 'ok' or 'running' with pid). This provides sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 6 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is efficient but could be more concise by merging redundant clauses. No wasted content, but the parameter information gap undermines conciseness.

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?

While the description covers the core behavior (async, dry-run, return states), it lacks parameter details and does not explain failure scenarios. Given the complexity (6 params, async semantics), the description is moderately complete but leaves gaps in parameter usage.

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 only 17% (only proximo_target documented). The description mentions 'confirm' in context but does not explain vmid, command, node, timeout format or constraints. The agent must rely on parameter names alone, which is insufficient for complex parameters like command array.

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 runs a command inside a guest via qemu-agent, which is distinct from sibling agent tools (file read, write, fs, info, set_password). The specific verb 'run a command' and mention of async polling make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains the dry-run pattern (default plan, re-call with confirm=True) and prerequisites (PROXIMO_ENABLE_AGENT=1, VMID in allowlist). It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the context makes it clear when to use this vs. other agent commands.

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