node_pressure_rca

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly marks the tool as a read operation ('[READ]') and describes the analysis process: ranking nodes, flagging over-threshold ones, and providing percentages and actions. It does not mention caching or real-time behavior, but it sufficiently discloses the non-destructive, analytical nature of the tool.

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 highly concise: a single line stating the purpose, followed by a brief paragraph explaining the process, and then a short parameter note. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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 tool's moderate complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool does, how it works (thresholds, ranking, actions), and the parameter. An AI agent can understand the input, operation, and expected output format.

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 one optional parameter 'target' with no description. The description adds value by explaining it is a 'Proxmox target name from config' and that omitting uses the default. This provides context that the schema alone does not, compensating for the 0% schema description 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 clearly states the tool ranks cluster nodes by CPU, memory, and root-fs pressure, flagging those over specific thresholds. The verb 'rank' and specific resource 'cluster nodes' with concrete metrics (CPU 85%, memory 90%, disk 85%) make the purpose precise. Though sibling differentiation is not explicit, the output (worst-first with actions) distinguishes it from generic status or resource tools.

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 usage for checking node health under resource pressure. It describes the data source ('pulls /cluster/resources node view') and thresholds. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings like 'node_status' or 'cluster_resources', which could be complementary. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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