proxmox_list_vms

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential requirements (e.g., permissions), return format, or any limitations. For a tool with no annotations, this lacks behavioral detail.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It contains no irrelevant words or redundancy, making it highly concise 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?

As a simple list tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the core purpose but lacks details about return values or edge cases. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to understand the full behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('node' and 'device_id') having descriptive titles. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it does not compensate or enhance the parameter information.

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 QEMU virtual machines on a Proxmox node, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('QEMU virtual machines'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_list_containers and proxmox_vm_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?

The description implies usage (use to list VMs on a node) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention alternatives such as proxmox_list_containers for containers, so the context is minimal and not fully explicit.

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