list_nodes

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

The description completely discloses what the tool returns (status, CPU/RAM/disk usage, uptime), which is sufficient for a read-only list operation. No annotations are provided, but the description covers the behavioral aspect adequately.

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 with no unnecessary words, clearly conveying the tool's action and output. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description is complete for a list tool with no parameters: it lists all nodes and specifies the details included. It could mention the return format (e.g., array of objects) but is otherwise sufficient. There is no output schema to rely on.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. According to the guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 all nodes of a Proxmox cluster with specific details (status, CPU/RAM/disk usage, uptime). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_status (single node) and list_storage (different resource).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. However, the context of listing all nodes versus other tools for specific resources is implicitly clear. No when-not or alternative mentions.

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