pve_ipset_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'READ-ONLY' and 'No state change,' clearly indicating the tool is safe and has no side effects. It also describes the return type as 'list of IPSet dicts.' No contradictions.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a short note. It is front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY' and immediately states the action. Every sentence adds value—purpose, scope constraint, state change indication, return type, and cross-references to related tools. No unnecessary words.

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's 5 parameters (all optional), presence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the core purpose, scope restrictions, state change behavior, and links to related tools for other operations. The return type is mentioned, and with an output schema, no further detail is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the bar is higher. The description mentions the scope constraint ('cluster or guest only') which aligns with the schema description, but does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 IP sets for a given scope (cluster or guest), uses a specific verb 'list', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming pve_firewall_ipset_create/delete and pve_firewall_ipset_entry_add/remove for creation/deletion and membership editing.

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 states when to use this tool (listing IP sets) and provides explicit alternatives for other operations (create/delete sets, edit membership). It also clarifies scope limitations (no node-scope ipsets), giving clear guidance on when not to use it.

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