pve_list_guests

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses the tool is read-only and describes the return format. However, it omits details on node parameter behavior, pagination, or potential restrictions, leaving moderate gaps.

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 only two sentences (35 words), front-loads the key verb and resource, and avoids any redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main input (node), output (list of guest objects with fields), and behavior (read-only). It is missing only a note about the node parameter being optional, which is minor.

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 50%, so the description should compensate. It mentions listing 'on a node' but does not explain the optional node parameter or its default. The proximo_target parameter is already fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning.

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 verb 'List', resource 'VMs and LXC containers on a node', and specifies it returns current state. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing it works across both types in a single call, making its 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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool—for listing all guests on a node. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer its primary use case.

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