get_proxmox_script_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] detailed information,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., script content, metadata, dependencies). It lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get detailed information') and specifies the resource clearly. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and output. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what 'detailed information' includes and how to interpret results, but it meets a bare minimum for a read-focused tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('script_name' and 'category') with examples and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'category' affects performance or what 'detailed information' entails. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific Proxmox community script'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_proxmox_scripts' by focusing on detailed information retrieval rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other information-getting tools like 'get_service_info' or 'get_proxmox_vm_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_proxmox_scripts' (which might help find scripts first) or other information-retrieval tools. There's no context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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