pve_ipset_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the tool as read-only but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, output format, or any side effects. The scope limitation is helpful but insufficient.

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: two sentences covering purpose and scope constraint without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 5 parameters and only 20% schema coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It explains only the scope parameter and omits explanations for kind, node, and vmid, which are critical for correct usage. Output schema exists but description doesn't reference it.

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 description coverage is only 20% (only proximo_target has a description). The tool description adds meaning to the 'scope' parameter but does not explain 'kind', 'node', or 'vmid', leaving their semantics unclear. More parameter guidance needed.

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 'List IP sets for the given scope (read)', which is a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly mentions the scope constraint, distinguishing it from other ipset operations like create or 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?

It explains valid scopes (cluster or guest only) and that node-scope ipsets don't exist, providing context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like pve_firewall_ipset_create or pve_firewall_ipset_entry_add for management tasks.

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