pve_node_hosts_get

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

The description states it is a read operation and warns that 'response shape not live-verified.' This alerts agents to potential inaccuracies in the documented output. It also specifies the return shape as '{data, digest}'. However, it does not disclose any need for authentication, potential errors, or rate limiting. Since no annotations exist, the description partially fulfills transparency but leaves gaps.

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 three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides the HTTP method and return shape, and the third is a caveat. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more structured with separate sections.

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 read tool with two parameters and an output schema (though not provided), the description is adequate. It gives the return shape and a warning about verification. However, it does not specify whether the 'node' parameter is required (the schema shows default null, implying optional), which could lead to misuse. More context on error handling would improve completeness.

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?

The description only references the 'node' parameter via the URL path '/nodes/{node}/hosts', but does not clarify its requiredness or constraints. The schema has 50% coverage (only 'proximo_target' has a description). The tool description fails to compensate for the 'node' parameter's lack of schema documentation, leaving ambiguity for agents.

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 'Get the /etc/hosts content of a PVE node (read).' This specifies a concrete verb ('Get') and resource ('/etc/hosts content of a PVE node'). It also notes that it's a read operation, distinguishing it from any write siblings. The mention of the HTTP method 'GET /nodes/{node}/hosts' reinforces the purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not in what context it is appropriate compared to other node-related tools like 'pve_node_dns' or 'pve_node_status'.

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