pve_get_vm_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operationasia, which is useful, but the description does not disclose permission requirements, potential errors, or explicitly state that no modifications are made. This is a minor gap for a simple getter, so a middle score is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant wording. It states the operation and the target resource immediately, making it easy to scan and process.

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 getter with an output schema, the description covers the basic operation and resource type, but it omits usage guidance and leaves parameter values (especially vm_type) only partially specified. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the missing parameter context prevents a higher score.

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 0% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds a meaningful hint that vm_type corresponds to either QEMU or LXC, but it does not explicitly define allowed values or explain the role of node and vmid beyond their names. It partially compensates for the schema gap but does not fully resolve ambiguity.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('config for a QEMU VM or LXC container'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_vm_status (status vs config) and set_vm_config (get vs set). The scope is unambiguous even without opening the schema.

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 implies usage by naming the resource type, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as pve_get_vm_status or pve_list_vms. There is no exclusionary guidance or mention of prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer from the verb and sibling names.

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