pve_hardware_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states READ-ONLY, no state change, and provides the return format. It could mention prerequisites like node existence or authentication, but for a list tool, this is sufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with READ-ONLY and purpose. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words. Excellent structure.

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 to describe return values, the description covers the important distinction from mapping tools, parameter use, and node scope. Complete for a list 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 baseline is 3. The description mentions hw_type default 'pci' or 'usb', which is already in the schema. No additional semantics added beyond what the schema provides.

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 lists physical PCI or USB devices attached to a PVE node, is READ-ONLY, and no state change. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools pve_mapping_pci_list and pve_mapping_usb_list, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 says when to use (to list physical HW inventory) and distinguishes from related sibling tools. It is implied that it is safe due to READ-ONLY and no state change. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list all alternatives beyond the two mentioned.

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