get_node_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation (metrics retrieval) with no side effects, but does not disclose response format, potential delays, or required permissions. For a simple metric tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and key data points. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects. However, without an output schema, the agent may need hints on the return structure or units, which are not provided. Still, it is largely 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single required parameter 'node'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond repurposing the parameter name; the schema's description is sufficient. Baseline 3 applies.

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 retrieves detailed metrics (CPU, RAM, disk, version, kernel) for a Proxmox node, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on VMs, containers, or storage. The verb 'Récupère' (retrieves) and specific metrics list make the purpose 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?

The description implies usage for node metrics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_vm_details or get_container_details. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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