node_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only 'Fetch' operation, which is transparent about the non-destructive nature. However, it does not disclose response format, potential errors, or any special permissions required. The description is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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, well-formed sentence that conveys the tool's action and key outputs without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and efficient.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema. The description lists the metrics returned (hardware, CPU/memory, kernel, status), which sufficiently hints at the output. However, it omits details about the node identifier format and any rate limits or prerequisites, leaving a small but notable gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'for a specific node', which adds minimal meaning to the 'node' parameter. It does not specify whether the value should be a node name, ID, or IP, nor any format constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description offers little extra semantic value.

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 'hardware metrics, CPU/memory usage, kernel version, and status for a specific node.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_nodes (which lists nodes) and get_vm_status/get_container_status (which target VMs/containers), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for a specific node' implies this is for individual node status rather than cluster-wide views, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cluster_health or cluster_resources. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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