pve_node_dns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the operation is read-only and describes the return value as a dict with search domain and nameservers, which is transparent for a read operation. Minor omission: does not mention error handling or node existence expectations, but still adequate.

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 concise sentences: first sets purpose and return type, second reinforces read-only nature and points to alternative. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

The description covers purpose, return type, and mutation alternative. It does not mention the output schema explicitly, but the presence of an output schema is noted in context. For a simple read tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the two parameters are already well-described in the schema (node default, proximo_target target selection). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, landing at baseline 3.

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 starts with 'Read a Proxmox node's DNS configuration (read-only)', clearly stating the action (read), resource (DNS configuration), and scope (node-level). It distinguishes from sibling pve_node_dns_set by labeling itself read-only and explicitly pointing to the set tool for changes.

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 explicitly says 'Use pve_node_dns_set to change it', providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool and directing to the appropriate alternative for mutation.

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