pve_sdn_vnets_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It declares 'read-only' which is a key behavioral trait, but does not disclose other aspects like required permissions, rate limits, or behavior when no vnets exist. The description adds value but could be more comprehensive.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence states the action and returns, the second provides sibling tool guidance. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity (list with optional param) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, read-only, returned fields, and related tools. It could mention edge cases or limitations, but it is sufficiently complete for this tool.

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% as only one optional parameter (proximo_target) is documented in the schema. The description does not mention this parameter or add any additional meaning beyond the schema description. Baseline score of 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 the tool lists SDN vnets in the cluster, with specificity on read-only nature and the fields returned (vnet name, zone, tag, alias, vlanaware state). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming pve_sdn_vnet_create and pve_sdn_apply for alternative 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 provides explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (not for creating or committing) and directs to pve_sdn_vnet_create and pve_sdn_apply. It lacks broader context about when to use this vs other list tools but is sufficient for the core scenario.

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