pve_realm_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares the operation is read-only and lists the returned fields (realm type, comment, TFA requirement, type-specific settings) with examples per realm type. No side effects are mentioned, which is appropriate. It could mention authentication requirements, but the read-only nature is well communicated.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and read-only nature; the second adds return fields and alternatives. Information is front-loaded and scans well.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It covers the purpose, read-only behavior, and provides examples of returned data per realm type. It omits error handling or preconditions, but for a simple get tool this is sufficient.

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 50%, with only proximo_target described. The description does not explicitly describe the 'realm' parameter, but it clarifies that the tool gets a realm's config, implying the parameter is the realm identifier. This adds meaning beyond the schema, and the output description compensates for the missing schema description.

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 'Get a realm's full config (read-only).' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling mutation tools by naming pve_realm_create/update/delete for management, and the read-only nature is explicit.

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 when to use (when you need a single realm's config) and when not to (for management, use other tools). It provides explicit alternatives for create/update/delete but does not differentiate from pve_realms_list, though the sibling list makes that clear.

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