pve_agent_file_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, requires no confirmation, that ledger only records file path, and that the response shape is unverified. This is comprehensive, though it could mention potential size limits.

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, front-loads 'READ-ONLY', and every sentence provides value. No redundant or irrelevant 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, prerequisites, behavioral traits, and a caution about unverified response shape. Slightly more detail on the 'file' parameter's absolute path requirement is helpful.

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 25%; the description adds context for the 'file' parameter by stating it must be absolute. However, it does not explain 'node' or 'vmid' parameters beyond what the schema provides (which lacks descriptions).

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 reads a file from inside the guest via qemu-agent. It is labeled 'READ-ONLY', specifies the verb 'read', and distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_agent_file_write. The prerequisites are explicitly listed.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (read a file) and prerequisites (PROXIMO_ENABLE_AGENT=1, VMID in allowlist). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like pve_agent_fs or pve_agent_exec.

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