Execute command in container (SSH + pct exec)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but not destructive operation. The description adds that the command is executed via 'pct exec' over SSH, which provides some implementation context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., command output handling, exit codes, or resource limits beyond the timeout parameter).

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 two sentences long, very concise, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition. It efficiently communicates the core functionality and a key prerequisite.

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 is simple (execute a command in a container), and the description covers the essential action and prerequisites. However, it lacks details about the output format (e.g., stdout/stderr, exit code) and does not explain the timeout behavior beyond the parameter existence. Given the absence of an output schema, this information would help an agent interpret results correctly.

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 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the schema already defines each parameter. The description adds context that the command is run via 'pct exec' and that SSH is required, which helps interpret the 'node' and 'vmid' parameters as Proxmox host and container ID. This adds marginal value beyond 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 action: running a shell command inside an LXC container via pct exec. It specifies the resource (LXC container) and the method (SSH to host). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like vm_agent_exec for VMs, but the mention of 'container' and 'pct exec' makes the purpose clear.

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 mentions the prerequisite of SSH access (PROXMOX_SSH_* env), which is a useful precondition. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vm_agent_exec for VMs, or direct host commands via other tools). The usage context is implied but not fully explicated.

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