pve_user_get

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

The description adds value beyond the schema by declaring the operation as 'read-only', implying safe, non-destructive behavior. It also lists return fields. Without annotations, the description carries the burden well, though it could mention any authentication or rate-limit considerations.

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 long, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. Efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and the comprehensive sibling list, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and differentiation. No gaps remain for an agent to misuse 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond listing return fields, so it meets the baseline for schema coverage. No further parameter elaboration is needed.

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's purpose: 'Get a user's full config (read-only)' and enumerates the returned fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that pve_user_create/update/delete are for modifications and pve_acl_list for ACLs.

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: use this tool to retrieve user config; use pve_user_create/update/delete for modifications; use pve_acl_list for ACL entries (clarifying that it provides raw ACL, not effective permissions).

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