pve_list_vms

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the source API endpoint and details about the return format (JSON list with fields and _human variants). It goes beyond annotations by explaining what the output contains, which helps the agent understand the behavior.

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: one sentence for purpose, then a brief list of applicability and filters, then return format. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses structured formatting (bullets) for clarity. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present, the description explains the return format sufficiently, including key fields and human-readable variants. It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a typical list tool this is adequate. The source endpoint is also noted, adding completeness.

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%, but the description lists all three parameters (node, type, status) and explains their possible values (e.g., type can be 'qemu' or 'lxc'). This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema, which only has type definitions.

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 'List QEMU VMs and LXC containers across the cluster.' The verb 'List' and the resource (VMs and containers) are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like pve_vm_status (single VM status) and pve_cluster_status (cluster-wide info).

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?

Describes the tool as listing both VMs and CTs with optional filters (node, type, status). While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use or name alternatives, the context from sibling tools implies this is for broad listing with optional filtering. It provides clear context for use.

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