cluster_health

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

With no annotations, the description relies on the verb 'Fetch' to indicate a read-only operation, which is a useful behavioral signal. However, it does not disclose potential costs like aggregation overhead, nor does it state what the 'health summary' contains beyond the listed metrics.

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, focused sentence that names the operation and its return items without fluff. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately lists the key return data (health summary, node counts, VM counts, CPU/memory). It is concise and covers the main purpose, though it does not elaborate on the format or interpretation of the health summary. For a simple 0-parameter tool, this is nearly complete.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter details, but per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, this is acceptable.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'aggregated health summary' of the Proxmox cluster, listing specific outputs (node counts, VM counts, CPU/memory utilization). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_nodes or node_status, which focus on individual nodes.

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 implies use for overall cluster health awareness but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like cluster_resources or node_status. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so guidance is only implied.

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