pve_guest_config_get

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

No annotations are provided, but the description explicitly states the operation is read-only and returns a complete config dict. This is sufficient for a read operation, though it doesn't mention authorization or error behavior.

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 two sentences with a front-loaded READ-ONLY label. Every sentence is non-redundant and adds critical information about the tool's use and relationship to sibling tools.

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, but it summarizes the config's contents. It covers the essentials: read operation, parameters, and rollback guidance. Minor gaps in error handling don't detract significantly for a get tool.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by summarizing the return content (cores, memory, network, etc.) and clarifying the 'kind' parameter meaning, which goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 reads a guest's current configuration for LXC or QEMU, listing what the config contains (cores, memory, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pve_guest_config_set and pve_guest_config_revert.

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 explicitly labels the tool as READ-ONLY and provides guidance: use pve_guest_config_set for mutations and capture the returned dict for rollback via pve_guest_config_revert. This clearly indicates when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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