Get container terminal proxy ticket

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructihint=false, which align with generating a ticket (a stateful, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation). The description does not add further behavioral context such as authentication requirements or ticket expiration, but it does not contradict annotations.

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 of 7 words with no fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action.

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 description is too brief for a tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage. It does not explain what a terminal proxy ticket is, how to use the result, or any side effects. Sibling tools exist, but no differentiation is provided.

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 input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for the two parameters ('node' and 'vmid'). It does not explain that 'node' refers to the Proxmox node or that 'vmid' is the container ID, leaving the agent without guidance on required values.

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 verb 'generate' and the resource 'terminal proxy ticket' for 'an LXC container'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like container_spiceproxy and container_vncproxy by specifying 'terminal proxy' rather than SPICE or VNC.

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 container_spiceproxy or container_vncproxy. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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