pve_list_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a 'list' operation, which implies read-only, but it doesn't mention pagination, ordering, default behavior when no filter is given, or any potential side effects. The output schema exists but isn't shown in the description, so the return format is not disclosed. This is a minimal disclosure for a read operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the key option. No wasted words, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.

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?

Given the tool is a simple list with one optional parameter and has an output schema, the description covers the core usage well. The main gap is not explicitly stating the default behavior when no filter is provided, but this is partially implied by the word 'optionally' and the existence of sibling tools for specific types. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 single parameter resource_type is described as an optional filter with examples (vm, storage, node), which adds meaning beyond the schema's plain 'string' type. However, it doesn't explain the default behavior when null (presumably returns all resources) or enumerate the full set of accepted values, which could be important for correct invocation.

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 tool lists cluster resources and optionally filters by type (vm, storage, node). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like pve_list_vms or pve_list_storage, though it doesn't explicitly mention it's the general-purpose listing that covers all types when no filter is applied.

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 indicates the optional filtering capability, which implies when to use it: when you need resources of a particular type or a combined listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like pve_list_vms or pve_list_storage, so the agent must infer that the specific tools may offer more detailed information or different scopes.

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