pve_realms_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 correctly identifies the operation as read-only and summarizes the output fields. While it does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, for a simple list operation this is reasonably transparent. A score of 4 reflects adequate disclosure without annotations.

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. It front-loads the purpose and output details, then provides usage guidance. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 detail return values. It already lists key return fields. The sibling tool guidance and read-only clarification make this complete for a list operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter 'proximo_target', which is already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about this parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists authentication realms/domains in Proxmox, specifies it is read-only, and lists the fields returned (type, comment, TFA setting, default flag). This differentiates it from sibling tools like pve_realm_get and pve_realm_create/update/delete which are mentioned for comparison.

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 directs the user to use pve_realm_get for type-specific config and pve_realm_create/update/delete for management, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings.

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