pve_node_services_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It declares the operation as read-only and specifies the return fields (name, state, description). However, it does not mention pagination, error handling, authorization needs, or what happens if 'node' is omitted. The transparency is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks depth.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes return format. Every sentence is valuable, with no redundant or verbose content. Perfectly concise.

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 the basic operation and return fields, which is sufficient for a simple list tool given that an output schema exists (though not provided). However, it lacks guidance on parameter usage and potential behaviors (e.g., effect of omitting 'node'), making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently without additional context.

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 50% schema description coverage (only 'proximo_target' has a description), the description adds no additional meaning for parameters. It does not clarify the 'node' parameter (e.g., required? defaults to local node?), nor explain how to specify it. The description misses the opportunity to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 'List all services on a PVE node (read-only)', specifying the action (list), resource (services), and scope (on a PVE node), with a clear distinction from sibling tools like pve_node_service_control (control) and pve_node_service_status (status).

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or differentiate from similar listing tools like pve_node_disks_list or pve_guest_status. Usage is only implied by the tool's function.

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