proxmox_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, but the description contributes nothing further — it does not say what "detailed" comprises, whether it contacts the node live (latency/failure modes), or what happens if the node is unreachable. The word "detailed" is the only behavioral hint and it is undefined.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words, which is good, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine economy. There is room for one clarifying clause without bloat.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of conveying what a "detailed status" response contains — and it says nothing. For a read tool whose entire value is the returned payload, the agent has no idea what fields or shape to expect.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (node, endpoint) are fully documented in the schema, including the optional-when-single-endpoint nuance. The description adds no meaning beyond that, 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?

States a verb and resource ("Get ... Proxmox node status"), so the basic action is clear, but "detailed" is undefined and nothing distinguishes this from the sibling proxmox_status or proxmox_guests. An agent cannot tell from the text alone whether this returns host metrics, services, or guest inventory.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. node must be in the endpoint config), and no routing to alternatives such as proxmox_status or proxmox_guests. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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