pve_firewall_alias_list

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

Clearly declares 'READ-ONLY' and 'No state change', and describes return format (dicts with name, cidr, comment, ipversion). Also notes scope limitation. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and does well.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a note about sibling tools. Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose and read-only flag. No 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 tool is a simple read-only list with output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: operation, scope, return format, and alternatives. No gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning to individual parameters beyond the schema; it only restates scope constraint. No additional semantic 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 the tool lists firewall aliases (named CIDRs) for a given scope, using the verb 'list' and resource 'firewall aliases'. It specifies scope options (cluster or guest) and distinguishes from sibling tools for create/update/delete.

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 states when to use (listing aliases for cluster or guest), when not to use (no node-scope aliases), and provides alternative tools for mutations (pve_firewall_alias_create/update/delete). Excellent guidance.

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