pve_get

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

The description adds the note 'Always safe — GET never mutates,' which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the HTTP method and safety. This is useful behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations (no contradiction).

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 very concise and well-structured: a short definition, a fully worked example, and a brief args list. Every sentence adds value and nothing is extraneous.

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 is present, so return-value details are not needed. The description provides context, an example, and a pointer to pve_discover. It could mention potential errors or authentication scope, but for a simple generic GET tool this is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining path as 'Full API path, starting with /' and params as 'Optional query parameters.' The example illustrates usage, though details on valid param keys or value formats are left generic, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 reads any Proxmox API endpoint directly, with a concrete example (pve_get('/nodes/pve/qemu/100/firewall/rules')). It is specific about the action (read) and resource (API endpoint), distinguishing it from higher-level read tools like guest_config or guest_status.

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?

It explicitly suggests using pve_discover to find paths, giving clear context for when to use this tool (when you need direct endpoint access and have a path). However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools for the same purpose, so it falls short of a 5.

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