Node Info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a read-only operation, and the description's verb 'Query' aligns with it. The 'elevated' note on status hints at a permission requirement, which is useful, but no other behavioral traits (e.g., output characteristics, rate limits) are disclosed. No contradiction with annotations.

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, compact line with a clear action-list structure. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then enumerates actions efficiently. The pipe-separated format is easy to parse and contains no fluff.

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 tool has no output schema and the description does not describe what each action returns, nor does it specify parameter requirements per action. For a multi-action query tool, an agent needs to know that 'status' requires a node, 'iface' requires both node and iface, and what the response shapes are. This is significant missing context given the breadth of actions.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the action enum by expanding each value (e.g., 'list: list all nodes'), which is valuable beyond the raw enum labels. However, it does not explain which parameters are needed per action (e.g., node required for status, iface required for iface), leaving a gap in parameter semantics.

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 queries Proxmox node info and enumerates five specific actions, giving an agent a concrete sense of scope. However, it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling proxmox_node_info, so the boundary is not fully explicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools like proxmox_node_info, proxmox_node_network_iface, or proxmox_node_config. It omits any exclusion criteria or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the action list.

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