Node Diagnostics

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the list of information types available, which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or output format variations across actions. It aligns with annotations and provides modest additional behavioral clarity.

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 line with a clear opening phrase and a compact list of action mappings. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (query + actions) is front-loaded.

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?

While the description explains the action options, it omits how parameters interact with specific actions (e.g., rrddata likely needs timeframe, storage_rrddata needs storage). No output schema is provided, so the agent has limited guidance on expected returns. For a tool with multiple action modes, this is a moderate gap.

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 80% (4 of 5 params described). The description compensates for the missing 'action' parameter description by explaining each enum value, which is the most critical parameter. It does not add details for storage, timeframe, or cf beyond what the schema already provides, but the action semantics are well covered.

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 node information and enumerates specific diagnostic actions (aplinfo, netstat, rrddata, etc.), making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like proxmox_node_log or proxmox_node_config. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but the action list effectively conveys scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The description implies usage for node diagnostics, but it does not mention exclusions or direct users to sibling tools like proxmox_node_log for logs or proxmox_node_service for service status.

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