proxmox_node_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that the tool is read-only, what happens on invalid parameters, or authentication requirements. The description only states 'query', which implies read-only, but lacks explicit behavioral traits.

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 a clear purpose and a well-structured list of actions. No wasted words; every part is informative and 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?

Despite having 5 parameters and multiple actions, the description does not explain return values, required parameter combinations (e.g., storage for storage_rrddata), or error behavior. The lack of output schema means the description should provide more context, but it is insufficient.

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 high (80%), and the description adds essential meaning for the 'action' parameter by enumerating each action and its data type. For other parameters, schema descriptions are sufficient. The description compensates for the missing schema description on 'action'.

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 'Query node information' and lists specific actions (aplinfo, netstat, etc.) that distinguish it from sibling tools like proxmox_node_config (which modifies config) or proxmox_node_disk (disk operations). It provides a specific verb and resource with 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?

The description lists actions but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., proxmox_node_network_iface for network interface management). No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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