proxmox_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the listed outputs give a basic sense of what the call returns. However, it does not disclose endpoint-resolution behavior, potential failures when no endpoint is configured, or any operational side effects, leaving some behavior implicit.

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, direct sentence with no filler and the main action front-loaded. It earns its place by naming three concrete output categories, though it could have been slightly richer with sibling guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one well-documented optional parameter, the description covers the basics. However, there is no output schema to clarify return structure, and the description does not clarify when to prefer proxmox_status over closely related siblings like proxmox_node or system_status, leaving moderate ambiguity.

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?

The input schema already documents the single optional parameter effectively, including when it can be omitted. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but because schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear action verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('Proxmox VE'), then enumerates the output categories: version, cluster status, and resources. It is understandable on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like proxmox_node or system_status, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as proxmox_node, proxmox_guests, or system_status. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or a preferred alternative, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and general wording.

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