pve_pools_list

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 the tool is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, or return format details (though output schema exists). The transparency is adequate but minimal.

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-loading the core purpose and delivering extra guidance concisely. Every sentence serves a purpose 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and points to a sibling for more details. No additional context is needed for proper use.

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 optional parameter (proximo_target), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 resource pools defined cluster-wide (read-only)' specifying the verb (list), resource (resource pools), and scope (cluster-wide). It also distinguishes from sibling pve_pool_get by mentioning that tool for detailed configuration, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to list all pools) and when to use an alternative (pve_pool_get for detailed config). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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