pve_list_guests

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It declares read-only behavior, returns a list of guest objects, and works across both VM and container types in a single call. This is sufficient for a simple list operation, though it does not mention potential performance implications or authentication requirements.

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 concise with two sentences, no fluff. Important information (read-only) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information.

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?

For a simple list tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, its scope across node/cluster, and references to more detailed tools. With an output schema available and clear parameters, this is fully adequate.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that omitting 'node' lists guests across the whole cluster, providing important context beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 all VMs and containers on a node (or entire cluster), specifying the returned fields (VMID, name, type, status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming alternatives for more detail (pve_guest_status, pve_guest_config_get).

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?

Explicitly says 'READ-ONLY' at the start, which guides appropriate usage. It explains when to use alternatives: for a single guest's runtime detail use pve_guest_status, for stored config use pve_guest_config_get. This provides clear selection criteria.

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