pve_get_container_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get container status') without any details on permissions required, rate limits, output format, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to understand the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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?

While concise with only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks front-loaded critical information and doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name. True conciseness balances brevity with completeness, which this fails to achieve.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the contextual information is severely inadequate. The description doesn't explain what 'status' entails, how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the simple parameter schema.

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%, with both parameters ('node' and 'vmid') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, such as examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score 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 'Get container status' restates the tool name 'pve_get_container_status' almost verbatim, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'container status', but lacks specificity about what status information is retrieved (e.g., running state, resource usage, uptime) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'pve_get_container_config' or 'pve_get_vm_status'.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'pve_list_containers', 'pve_get_vm_status'), there's no indication of when this specific status retrieval is appropriate.

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