Get container VNC proxy ticket

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

The description says 'Generate' implying a write operation, consistent with readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not disclose behavioral details like ticket expiration, temporary nature, or that the ticket is typically used for immediate connection. No contradiction with 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 sentence and concise, but it omits critical information. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value (the ticket), how to use the ticket, or the role of the websocket parameter. The description fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions and annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the parameters (node, vmid, websocket). It fails to explain that 'websocket' is a boolean indicating whether a WebSocket connection is requested, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

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 generates a VNC ticket for an LXC container console, specifying the resource type (container) and output (ticket). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like container_spiceproxy or container_termproxy, which target different console protocols.

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 (e.g., SPICE or terminal proxy). The description does not mention prerequisites, such as the container needing a VNC console enabled, or that this ticket is typically used with a WebSocket connection.

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