Get VM terminal proxy ticket

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (not read-only) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive), but the description adds no additional context about side effects, permissions required, or the lifecycle of the generated ticket. For a ticket-generation tool, information about expiry or revocation would be helpful.

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, front-loading the key action. However, it is arguably too brief, lacking important details about parameters and usage that could be added without bloating the text. Balance between conciseness and completeness is moderate.

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?

With no output schema, the description should at least mention what the ticket is used for or what format it returns. It also does not cover prerequisites like VM being powered on or agent requirements. For a tool in a complex context (many siblings, no param docs), it is incomplete.

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 0%, meaning neither the schema nor the description provides any meaning for the two parameters 'node' and 'vmid'. While these are common in Proxmox, a new agent would benefit from explanations like 'Proxmox node name' and 'numeric VM ID'. The description omits any parameter guidance.

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 'serial terminal (termproxy) ticket for the VM', making the action and target unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like vm_vncproxy or container_termproxy, which also generate tickets for different types of console access.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given numerous sibling tools with similar purposes (e.g., vm_spiceproxy, vm_vncproxy, container_termproxy), the description should indicate preferred use cases, such as serial terminal vs graphical console, but it does not.

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