pve_tfa_list

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares the operation is read-only and lists returned fields, which is sufficient for a list tool. It does not mention potential side effects, performance implications, or auth requirements, but for a read-only list these are less critical. A mention of no side effects would raise to 5.

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, front-loading the core purpose and immediately following with sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema exists (context signals confirm), the description adequately covers what the tool returns (userid, factor type, factor id, metadata). The tool is simple with one parameter and a clear use case, so the description is complete.

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% for the single parameter (proximo_target). The description does not add any additional context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so 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 the tool lists all per-user TFA entries across the cluster, specifies it is read-only, and distinguishes it from sibling tools (pve_tfa_get for one user, pve_tfa_delete for removal). The verb 'list' and resource 'per-user TFA entries' are specific and unambiguous.

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 this tool (listing all entries) and directs to alternatives: pve_tfa_get for a single user's entries and pve_tfa_delete for removal, including a risk warning. This provides clear decision guidance.

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