pve_overbroad_grants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates read-only behavior with 'diagnostic (read).' It states it surfaces over-broad grants, implying no side effects. However, it does not detail what happens with the results or authentication requirements. For a read diagnostic tool, this is fairly transparent but could mention output expectations.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'Surface' and includes the specific scope ('Administrator role or root '/' path') and read-only nature. No wasted words.

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 tool has one optional parameter and an output schema (as per context signals), the description need not explain return values. However, it could be more complete by hinting at the output format or what specific grants are returned. The description is adequate but lacks a mention that it returns a list of problematic grants.

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% with one parameter proximo_target, which has a detailed description in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning for this parameter beyond what the schema provides. Thus, the description adds no value for parameter semantics, meeting the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Surface over-broad ACL grants (Administrator role or root '/' path) as a diagnostic (read).' The verb 'Surface' is specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_acl_list which list all ACLs, and pve_acl_modify which modifies. The focus on 'over-broad' and 'diagnostic' sets it apart.

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 implies use for security diagnostics by stating 'as a diagnostic (read).' It does not explicitly mention when to use vs alternatives, but the name and phrasing suggest it's for finding problematic grants, not general ACL listing. It lacks exclusion criteria or when not to use, but the context is clear.

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