pve_guest_status

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool is read-only and returns runtime state and resource utilization, clarifying it does not return stored configuration. This is transparent but lacks potential error conditions or performance caveats.

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 three sentences, front-loading the action and its read-only nature, then detailing the output, and finally directing to an alternative. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy.

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 low schema coverage (25%) and lack of annotations, the description is adequate but could be improved. It does not clarify how the 'node' parameter is used or what happens if a guest is not found. The output schema exists, so return values are not required, but parameter usage context is missing.

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% (only 'proximo_target' has a description). The description adds minimal parameter meaning: it mentions 'kind' values (lxc/qemu) but does not explain 'node' or 'vmid' beyond what the schema shows. It should elaborate on node selection and vmid format.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: reading operational status of a single guest (LXC or QEMU) and retrieving runtime metrics. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'pve_guest_config_get' by noting that this tool returns operational metrics, not full configuration.

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 advises using 'pve_guest_config_get' for full configuration, providing a clear alternative. It does not, however, offer broader guidance on when to use this tool versus other status-related siblings like 'pve_list_guests'.

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