guest_health_rca

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

The description explicitly marks the tool as read-only with '[READ]' and describes the output format (worst-first findings with numbers and remediation, plus list of stopped guests). However, with no annotations provided, it could disclose more about authorization requirements or rate limits.

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 concise, with a summary line followed by a brief explanation and parameter detail. It uses clear structure (args block) and front-loads the main purpose. No unnecessary 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return value: worst-first findings with measured numbers and remediation, plus a list of stopped guests. It also specifies the underlying data source ('/cluster/resources guest view'). This is complete for a simple health scan tool with one parameter.

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?

There is only one parameter ('target') with 0% schema description coverage. The description explains it clearly: 'Proxmox target name from config; omit to use the default.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, which only lists type and default.

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?

Description starts with '[READ]' and clearly states the tool scans VMs and containers for stopped guests, memory saturation, and disks near full. It specifies pulling the guest view and reporting worst-first findings with remediation. This distinguishes it from siblings like node_pressure_rca, which focuses on node-level pressure.

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 this tool is for health diagnostics but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like vm_get or node_status. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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