pve_get_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating safety and side effects. 'Return' implies a read-only informational operation and no destructive behavior, but the description does not address authorization, error conditions, or response behavior beyond what the output schema presumably covers.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states exactly what the tool does with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple, parameterless getter, the description is nearly complete, especially because an output schema exists to document return values. It could add minimal context around authentication or unavailability, but none of these are material gaps for version retrieval.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed, matching the baseline score for a nullary tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource ('Proxmox VE version information'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like pve_get_cluster_status and pve_list_nodes, so an agent can tell it is the version-reporting endpoint without inspecting schemas.

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 makes the use case clear: call this to obtain Proxmox VE version information. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous and no sibling appears to overlap with version retrieval, so the context is sufficient.

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