container_config

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

With no annotations, the description needs to disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'get configuration' without mentioning that this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, or whether any side effects exist. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's safety profile.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could include a bit more useful information without becoming verbose.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description does not provide enough context. It does not explain what the configuration output looks like, how to interpret results, or any prerequisites. This is incomplete for a tool with two required parameters and many related siblings.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (node, vmid). The description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter names, such as how to find valid values or what they represent. This leaves an agent without essential context.

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 retrieves the configuration of an LXC container, using the specific verb 'get' and resource 'configuration of an LXC container'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'set_container_config' (write) and 'container_status' (status).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'vm_config' for VMs or 'set_container_config' for modifying config. No prerequisites or contextual cues are given.

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