proxmox_get_storage

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'list', but it does not mention authentication requirements, error conditions, or the return format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a minimal but not fully transparent disclosure.

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 conveys the core purpose without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has only two simple parameters and no output schema. The description adequately states the main action but lacks details about the return value (e.g., whether it returns an array of pool names or objects) and any edge-case behavior. It is sufficient for a basic 'list' tool but is not richly contextual.

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%, with both 'node' and 'device_id' already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about these parameters (e.g., the relationship between node and device_id, or expected formats). It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('storage pools'), and the scope ('on a Proxmox node'), which makes its purpose immediately obvious and distinct from sibling tools like proxmox_get_network or proxmox_list_vms.

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?

It provides clear context: use this tool when you need to list storage pools for a specific Proxmox node. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the naming convention among the sibling tools makes the use case straightforward. No exclusions are stated, which is acceptable for a simple listing operation.

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