pve_sdn_controllers_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states READ-ONLY and cluster-scoped, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose other details such as whether results are paginated, if the tool has any performance implications, or what exactly is returned (only that it lists controllers).

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the most important info (READ-ONLY, list, cluster-scoped). It uses no unnecessary words, but it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

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 that no annotations exist and an output schema is present (but not detailed), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the tool's purpose and scope but not the return format, limits, or how the parameters affect output.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters (e.g., it does not explain the filter by controller_type). The schema itself is sufficient.

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 SDN controllers, specifies it is READ-ONLY and cluster-scoped, and distinguishes from sibling tools pve_sdn_controller_create (to add) and pve_sdn_apply (to commit). The verb 'list' and resource 'SDN controllers' are specific, and the scope adds precision.

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 gives clear usage context: listing controllers and mentions alternatives for adding and committing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for retrieving a single controller) or compare with other list-like tools such as pve_sdn_controller_get.

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