proxmox_node

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

Discloses that action=status requires elevated privileges, but does not explicitly state read-only nature or other behavioral traits like rate limits or permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and offers partial coverage.

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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a pipe-separated list for actions. No unnecessary words, though structure could be improved with bullet points.

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?

Without output schema, the description gives a high-level idea of each action but lacks detail on return formats or when each action is appropriate. With sibling tools, more context on distinct use cases would improve completeness.

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 covers node, type, iface with descriptions (75% coverage). The description adds significant value by explaining each action enum value, which lacks description in the schema, but does not add to the other parameters beyond schema.

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 queries Proxmox node info and enumerates specific actions (list, status, network, dns, iface). It distinguishes from siblings by being a general query tool, but could be more explicit about its scope versus proxmox_node_info.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like proxmox_node_config, proxmox_node_disk, or proxmox_node_info. Does not include when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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