node_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the '[READ]' tag adds nothing new. The description does add value by naming the returned fields (status, cpu load, memory), but omits pagination, scoping, or auth/connection context for the target.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then a compact Args block. No wasted sentences. The '[READ]' prefix is slightly redundant against the readOnlyHint annotation but costs little.

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 single-optional-param read-only list tool with no output schema, this covers purpose, contents, and the one parameter adequately. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation, which is minor given the small surface.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter. It does: 'target: Proxmox target name from config; omit to use the default' explains both the meaning of the value and the default behavior, which the bare schema (string|null, default null) does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Proxmox cluster nodes') and adds the payload contents (status, cpu load, memory), so the agent knows what comes back. However it does not distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling node_status, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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 gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. With siblings like node_status and cluster_status in the list, some routing hint was warranted, but none is provided.

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