proxmox_vms

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it does convey that this is a read-only enumeration scoped to a single node. It does not address pagination, result limits, permissions required, or what happens if the node name is invalid. For a low-risk list operation the scope statement is adequate but thin.

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 with no filler; the resource and scope appear immediately. It is efficient, though almost too terse to stand alone without the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple two-parameter read. What is missing is the instance-to-node relationship and any usage routing against proxmox_nodes, leaving the definition minimally complete.

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 100% and both parameters (node, instance) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the node scoping but adds nothing about the 'instance' parameter or the relationship between instance and node.

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 names a specific verb ('List') plus both resources it covers (QEMU VMs and LXC containers) and the scope ('on a Proxmox node'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like proxmox_start_vm, proxmox_stop_vm, proxmox_snapshot, and proxmox_nodes, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with proxmox_nodes (which lists nodes rather than guests).

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. that the node must belong to the named instance), and no exclusions. The listing intent is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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