pve_mapping_usb_list

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

Begins with 'READ-ONLY' and 'No state change', fully disclosing the non-destructive nature. Describes the return format (list of dicts with fields). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and does so excellently.

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?

Four sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and key behavioral trait (read-only). Every sentence adds value.

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 operation, the description covers the scope (cluster), the output format, and distinguishes from related tools. No missing essential information for invocation.

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?

Only one parameter (proximo_target) with 100% schema coverage by the input schema's own description. The description does not add further details about the parameter, so baseline 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 verb 'list' and the resource 'all USB device mappings at cluster scope'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning alternatives (pve_hardware_list for raw devices, pve_mapping_usb_create for creation). No ambiguity.

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 states when to use this tool (to list USB mappings) and provides alternatives for when not to use it (raw devices via pve_hardware_list, creating mappings via pve_mapping_usb_create). This gives clear usage context.

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