pve_mapping_pci_list

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

The description adds the read-only trait and return format, which is helpful given no annotations are provided. However, it doesn't discuss permissions, error conditions, or other behavioral constraints.

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, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and scope, followed by return details. 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 output schema covers return details, the description adds essential context (cluster scope, PCI devices, assignable to VMs/LXCs) and distinguishes from USB mappings. No gaps for a simple 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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the only parameter (proximo_target), the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, adhering to the baseline score.

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 PCI device mappings at cluster scope and is read-only, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pve_mapping_pci_create (create), pve_mapping_pci_delete (delete), and pve_mapping_pci_update (update).

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 implies usage for listing existing PCI mappings, with clear read-only intent. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the sibling tools for mutations provide context, making usage reasonably clear.

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