node_list

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 indicates a read operation with [READ], and lists the output fields (status, cpu load, memory). However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects (though for a read tool, few are expected).

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an argument line. The purpose is front-loaded with the [READ] tag. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information: it lists nodes with status, CPU, and memory. No filtering or pagination are mentioned, but likely not needed for this tool. The description covers the basics well.

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 0% description coverage, and the parameter 'target' lacks any schema description. The tool description compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose: 'Proxmox target name from config; omit to use the default.' This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 it lists Proxmox cluster nodes with specific metrics (status, cpu load, memory). The [READ] prefix indicates a read operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like node_status (which is likely for a single node) by explicitly saying '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 explains the target parameter but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as node_status, cluster_status, or other node-related tools. There is no explicit when-not or alternative suggestion.

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