pve_overbroad_grants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: declares READ-ONLY, no state change, returns list of flagged entries (empty when none). It does not mention permissions or performance impact, but the core behavior is clear.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and well-structured: purpose, safety guarantee, output, and alternatives. Every word 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?

The description covers purpose, behavior, output, and alternatives. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed further. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions) but given the read-only diagnostic nature, it's 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?

Only one parameter (proximo_target) with 100% schema coverage; the description adds no detail beyond the schema's explanation of target selection. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents it adequately.

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 tool surfaces over-broad ACL grants for least-privilege diagnostics, using specific verb 'surface' and resource 'ACL grants'. It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives pve_acl_list and pve_acl_modify.

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 notes no state change and recommends pve_acl_list for full ACL and pve_acl_modify to tighten findings, giving clear when-to-use guidance. It could be more explicit about when not to use, but the READ-ONLY label and diagnostic purpose suffice.

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