proxmox_cluster_resources

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 discloses the resource scope (all VMs, containers, storage, nodes) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but it does not mention potential performance costs, pagination, return format, or authentication requirements. The transparency is adequate for a simple overview tool but not rich.

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 communicates the essential purpose and scope in minimal words. Every element—the verb, resource, and parenthetical examples—earns its place with no 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 moderate complexity of a two-parameter read-only overview tool and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key resource categories and purpose. It does not detail the exact return structure, but the parenthetical enumeration provides sufficient context for an agent to know what will be retrieved. Sibling tools for detailed views also reduce the need for extensive detail.

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%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description's parenthetical listing of resource types loosely aligns with the 'type' parameter but adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, keeping the score at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'cluster-wide resource overview' from Proxmox, listing the included categories (VMs, containers, storage, nodes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_list_vms or proxmox_get_nodes by emphasizing the aggregate 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?

The phrase 'cluster-wide resource overview' clearly implies use when a high-level view across all resources is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like proxmox_list_vms for filtered per-resource views, so it stops short of full guidance.

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