pve_sdn_ipam_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns exactly what the live API returns, including the secret/token, and specifies that redaction only occurs in PLAN previews and audit ledger for update/delete operations. This adds significant insight beyond the basic read operation.

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 front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY' and a clear one-line purpose. The subsequent paragraphs about secret handling add useful context but are slightly verbose. Overall, it is efficient with minimal wasted text.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides additional context about the secret's presence and the API's behavior. However, it lacks information about error cases or rate limits. Still, it is fairly complete for a read tool with schema coverage.

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 schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description does not add new semantics for input parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'Existing SDN ipam integration id to read' matches schema). The extra detail about the return shape concerns output, not input.

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 'read one SDN ipam integration's configuration' with the explicit verb 'read' and the resource 'SDN ipam integration'. It leads with 'READ-ONLY', immediately distinguishing it from mutating siblings like pve_sdn_ipam_create, pve_sdn_ipam_delete, and pve_sdn_ipam_update.

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 this tool is for reading a single IPAM config but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like pve_sdn_ipams_list (which lists all IPAM integrations). No direct guidance on prerequisites or exclusion of other tools is provided.

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