pve_mapping_usb_list

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

With no annotations, the description adds some transparency by declaring the operation is read-only and describing the return format. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like pagination, performance, or auth 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 two clear sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the purpose and then detailing the return structure.

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 presence of an output schema and the simplicity of a list operation, the description covers the essentials. It could mention that results are cluster-scoped, which it does, but lacks details on ordering or filtering.

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% and the single parameter is a target selector. The description does not add any additional meaning about parameter usage beyond what the schema describes.

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 all USB device mappings at cluster scope, is read-only, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pve_mapping_usb_create by explicitly listing the output fields.

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 when to use (for listing) versus alternatives (create/delete/update) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide guidance on alternative tools.

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