pve_sdn_subnet_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 explicitly states 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose what happens if the vnet does not exist, whether the list is always complete, or any authentication requirements. The description adds value but lacks some behavioral details.

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: the first states purpose and return data, the second gives usage alternatives. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 and the tool's simplicity (list operation), the description adequately covers return values and context. It mentions required vnet and return fields. However, it could be more complete by noting that vnet must exist or listing potential error states.

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 50% (vnet has no description). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'in a vnet', which implies the vnet parameter is required. It does not describe the format or constraints of the vnet parameter. The optional proximo_target is already described in schema. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'subnets in a vnet', and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_sdn_subnet_create and pve_sdn_apply. It also lists the return fields (CIDR, gateway, dhcp, snat, dns).

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 tells when to use alternatives ('Use pve_sdn_subnet_create to add and pve_sdn_apply to commit'), providing context for when to use this tool (read-only listing) vs. others. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient.

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