pve_get_node_report

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. While 'Generate' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether it's resource-intensive, what format the report comes in, or if it has any side effects. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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 extremely concise at just three words ('Generate node diagnostic report'), with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. For a simple tool with one parameter, this level of brevity is appropriate 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?

For a diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the 'diagnostic report' contains, what format it returns, whether it's a summary or detailed analysis, or how it differs from other node information tools. The combination of missing behavioral context and output information makes this description incomplete for the tool's purpose.

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 schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'node' well-described as 'Node name' in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 'Generate node diagnostic report' states a clear verb ('Generate') and resource ('node diagnostic report'), but it's somewhat vague about what exactly constitutes a 'diagnostic report' and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'pve_get_node_status' or 'pve_get_node_journal' that also retrieve node information. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity about the report's content.

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 versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve node information (e.g., pve_get_node_status, pve_get_node_journal, pve_get_node_syslog), there's no indication of what makes this 'diagnostic report' different or when it should be preferred over other node information tools.

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