Get Node Dashboard Telemetry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds that values are "real-time" and scoped to the selected node, but says nothing about whether counts include stopped/disabled resources, sampling behavior, or cost of the live metrics call. Adequate but not rich beyond 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the metric enumeration is informative rather than padding. The parenthetical list and the metric list are slightly dense but each item conveys a distinct return field.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by enumerating the metric categories collected. Combined with a single optional, fully documented parameter and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only aggregation granularity and staleness semantics are left unstated.

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 is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including default "local", a numeric-string pattern, and a reference to list_nodes. The description's phrase "on the selected node" adds no meaning the schema does not already carry, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Read") with a clearly enumerated resource: resource counts (websites, apps, databases, cronjobs) plus CPU, load, memory, swap, network and disk utilization. An agent knows exactly what data comes back. It stops short of naming how it differs from a potentially overlapping sibling such as get_system_info, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied by content: monitoring node health and resource consumption. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives like get_system_info or list_nodes for node discovery (the schema does point to list_nodes for IDs, which helps slightly).

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