pve_notification_endpoint_list

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It declares 'READ-ONLY' and 'No state change', and describes the return format as a list of dicts with type, name, and config. However, it does not mention potential pagination or performance characteristics.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the key purpose and read-only status. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema exists and the parameter is well-documented, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage clearly. It could mention that it lists only endpoints (not matchers) but that is implied by the tool name and siblings.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter proximo_target, which is well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 PVE notification endpoints' and specifies it is read-only with no state change. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_notification_endpoint_create and pve_notification_endpoint_delete.

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 states when to use the tool (to list endpoints) and provides alternatives for modifying endpoints (create/delete). This clear guidance helps the agent decide among siblings.

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