pve_sdn_zone_bridges

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 declares the tool as read-only and lists the type of information returned (bridges, member ports, VMID, VLAN info). However, it does not disclose potential errors, performance characteristics, or side effects beyond the read-only implication.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. No redundant words; every part 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 nature as a read-only list operation, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool returns and its read-only behavior. Minor missing details about ordering or error cases do not significantly detract.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds no new semantic information beyond what is already in the schema; it merely reinforces the read-only nature. Baseline score is 3 due to high schema coverage, with no added value.

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 lists bridges (vnets) in a zone on a node with member port details. It is specific about the resource and output, but does not explicitly differentiate from related sibling tools like pve_sdn_zone_content.

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 begins with 'READ-ONLY' hinting at safe usage, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pve_sdn_zone_status_list or pve_sdn_zone_content. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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