pve_sdn_ipams_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', indicating no side effects, and mentions 'cluster-scoped' scope. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or performance implications. For a simple list operation, the read-only declaration is valuable 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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and scope. The second sentence provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (list operation with two optional parameters, output schema provided), the description covers the essential context: purpose, scope, and related actions. It does not explain return values (handled by output schema) or parameter details (handled by schema). It could mention the ipam_type filter for completeness, but the schema covers that.

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 both parameters (ipam_type and proximo_target). The tool description does not add any parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is 3.

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's purpose: 'READ-ONLY: list SDN ipam integrations (cluster-scoped)'. It identifies the verb (list), resource (SDN ipam integrations), and scope (cluster-scoped). Additionally, it distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing pve_sdn_ipam_create and pve_sdn_apply for related operations.

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 provides usage guidance by instructing to use pve_sdn_ipam_create to add integrations and pve_sdn_apply to commit changes. This clearly indicates when to use this tool (just listing) versus when to use alternatives.

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