node_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavior disclosure burden. It does signal a safe read operation and explains the target default behavior, but it does not describe the shape of the health result, not-found behavior, or any required permissions. This is adequate for a simple read but not comprehensive.

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 core purpose is stated in one front-loaded sentence, followed by two compact argument lines with no filler. The structure lets an agent parse intent and invocation details quickly.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what is read, how the node is identified, and how the optional target behaves. It is slightly incomplete only in not specifying return details or explicit sibling alternatives.

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%, yet the description covers both parameters: name_or_ip is defined as 'Node caption or IP address to look up,' and target is explained as a config target with the default-omission rule. This goes well beyond the bare schema and fully compensates for the low coverage.

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 opens with '[READ] One SolarWinds node's health by caption or IP (Orion.Nodes)', stating a specific verb, resource, and lookup key. It clearly separates node_status from sibling list/interface/volume/application tools by restricting to a single node and an identity key.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no sibling alternatives are named. The '[READ]' and 'One ... by caption or IP' wording implies the intended case, but an agent must infer how this differs from nodes_list or interface_status.

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