search_proxmox_scripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the source ('community-scripts/ProxmoxVE repository') but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, performance implications (e.g., network latency), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. The input schema hints at performance ('Slower but more detailed' for metadata), but the description itself lacks these disclosures.

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 without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does and where it searches, with zero waste. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource and source.

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 complexity (a search tool with performance trade-offs per the schema) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, output format, or error handling. For a tool that interacts with external repositories and has performance implications, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain search syntax, category meanings beyond the enum, or metadata details. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra value.

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 searches for 'Proxmox community installation scripts' from a specific repository, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('scripts'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_proxmox_script_info' (which likely fetches details for a specific script) by focusing on search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search-related tools in the list.

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 when to choose this over 'get_proxmox_script_info' (which appears to fetch detailed info for a known script) or other discovery tools like 'list_available_services'. There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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