resource_summary

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context by stating that it returns a host-wide overview in one call, covering health, guests, and storage. It does not mention performance or response details, but the output schema compensates, and there is 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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get a one-shot overview'), and every phrase earns its place—'whole Proxmox host', the listed contents, and the 'start here' guidance. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 zero parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description is complete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. It fully communicates what the tool returns and when to use it, and no missing information would hinder selection or invocation.

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 is empty, so there are zero parameters to document. Per the rubric, this yields a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies that the tool requires no arguments and provides a complete overview by default.

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 resource ('overview of the whole Proxmox host'), enumerating concrete contents: node health, every VM and container, and every storage. It clearly distinguishes itself from narrower sibling tools like list_guests, list_storage, and node_status by presenting an aggregate one-shot overview.

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 phrase 'Start here' gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool as the first call, and 'instead of a dozen' communicates its role as a replacement for multiple granular queries. It does not name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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