node_status

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

The '[READ]' marker duplicates the readOnlyHint=true annotation rather than adding to it. It does add useful scope context by naming the four metric families returned, but says nothing about permissions, targets/fallback behavior, or freshness of the data, which is below the bar for a richer behavioral disclosure.

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 read-only marker and the payload summary, then a compact Args block. No filler, though the bracketed tag is slightly redundant with the annotation.

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?

With no output schema, the metric list in the description is the agent's only preview of the response, and it covers the essentials. Missing details such as units, value interpretation (e.g. load thresholds), or behavior when target is omitted keep it from being fully complete.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains 'node' (name, obtained via node_list) and 'target' (Proxmox target from config), giving the agent enough to supply both correctly, though it does not clarify the default/optional nature of target.

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+resource ('Detailed status for one node') and enumerates the returned metrics (cpu, load average, memory, uptime), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like cluster_status or node_list, but the single-node scope is unambiguous.

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?

Provides a pointer to node_list for discovering valid node names, which implies the intended call-order (list first, then status). It never says when NOT to use it or how it relates to cluster_status/node_pressure_rca, so usage is only implied.

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