pve_security_groups_list

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

Description notes the tool is read-only and lists returned fields (id, comment, digest). It also explains what a security group is (reusable named rule set). Without annotations, this provides good transparency for a simple read operation.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states core purpose, second adds return details and alternative guidance. Everything is essential and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple list tool with output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, alternative usage, and concept. It doesn't detail edge cases or target parameter usage, but the schema covers that. Overall sufficient.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for a single parameter, which the description does not mention. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states 'List the cluster's firewall security groups (read-only)'. It specifies verb (list), resource (security groups), and scope (cluster). It also differentiates from the sibling tool pve_firewall_rules_list, which reads rules at a specific scope.

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 when to use an alternative: 'use pve_firewall_rules_list to read a specific scope's active rules'. This helps agents choose the correct tool. No explicit when-not, but the context is clear.

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