list_proxmox_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only adds minimal behavioral context: it mentions the host parameter fallback to an environment variable. It doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a tool that interacts with infrastructure.

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 front-loads the core purpose and includes essential operational detail (host fallback). There is zero waste, and every part 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that lists cluster resources. It covers the basic action and host parameter but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, which are important for an infrastructure tool. However, the schema provides good parameter coverage, raising it above minimal viability.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it repeats the host fallback but doesn't elaborate on resource_type semantics). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 the verb 'List' and resource 'Proxmox cluster resources', specifying the types (VMs, containers, nodes, storage). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'list_vms' by covering broader resources, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like 'get_proxmox_node_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 implies usage for listing resources in a Proxmox cluster and mentions an alternative host source (environment variable), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_vms' or 'get_proxmox_node_status'. It lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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