pve_sdn_vnet_get

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 clearly declares the operation as READ-ONLY and describes it as reading configuration. It doesn't mention any side effects, which is appropriate for a read-only tool. Could briefly note that the vnet must exist, but that is implicitly clear.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence with a parenthetical clarification plus a one-sentence usage suggestion. Front-loads the read-only nature and the tool's purpose. 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 existence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity (reading a vnet config), the description sufficiently orients the agent. It explains the historical gap and the prerequisite list step. A point deducted because it doesn't mention output structure, but the output 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters. The description does not add new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 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 it reads one SDN vnet configuration. The phrase 'READ-ONLY:' immediately signals the read-only intent. It distinguishes from the list sibling by calling out the gap and suggesting using pve_sdn_vnets_list first.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use pve_sdn_vnets_list to enumerate vnet names first, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus its list counterpart. Also includes the read-only hint.

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