node_idlepc_proposals

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose permissions required, side effects, or error handling (e.g., what happens if the node does not exist). Minimal transparency.

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, clear sentence that gets straight to the point. No unnecessary words or fluff, making it highly concise.

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 the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, output schema exists), the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what 'idle-PC proposals' are, the context of Dynamips, or any nuances, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 description adds no information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no help understanding 'node_id' or 'project_id' roles or usage.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('Dynamips idle-PC proposals'), and the target ('for a node'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'node_idlepc_auto', which suggests an automated version.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'node_idlepc_auto' or 'node_get'. There are no prerequisites, context, or conditions mentioned, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage.

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