guest_config

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It reveals return behavior ('Returns Proxmox's raw config keys') and expected inputs. It implies read-only by saying 'see how a guest is provisioned', but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive. Still, it adds useful behavioral context.

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 brief with no redundant sentences. The first line front-loads the core purpose, and the second paragraph gives requirements and return info efficiently.

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?

For a read operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description reasonably covers inputs, output examples, and usage context. It could mention that operation is read-only, but overall it provides sufficient guidance for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It restates the three required parameters and clarifies the 'type' enum values ('qemu'/'lxc'). However, it adds little beyond what the schema already shows, and does not explain 'node' or 'vmid' in detail.

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 'Full provisioning config of a VM/container' and lists specific attributes it retrieves (cores, memory, disks, network). It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_guest_resources and guest_status by specifying it reads config.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to see how a guest is provisioned before calling set_guest_resources', providing a specific when-to-use and a sibling alternative. No guidance on when not to use, but the context is clear.

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