pve_apt_versions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full weight. It discloses read-only behavior, explains that the tool cannot perform upgrades, and provides expected output shape (per-package dicts). This goes beyond basic read-only annotation.

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 extremely concise (3 sentences) and front-loads the most critical information (READ-ONLY, purpose, API path). Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema exists, the description provides useful context by warning that the output shape is not live-verified and listing expected fields. It also clarifies the tool's scope (visibility only, no upgrade). While it doesn't define 'important packages', it is sufficiently complete for an experienced user.

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% with parameter descriptions already present. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'get' and resource 'installed versions of important Proxmox packages on a PVE node', with the 'READ-ONLY' prefix and API path. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like pve_apt_updates_list or pve_apt_changelog.

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?

Usage context is implied through purpose, but there are no explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pve_apt_updates_list for available updates). No when-not-to-use or exclusions are provided.

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