pve_get_node_service_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get service state' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive), detail authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description lacks behavioral traits like whether it returns real-time status, historical data, or requires specific permissions, leaving significant gaps for a tool that interacts with system services.

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 with just three words, making it front-loaded and waste-free. However, it borders on under-specification, as it could benefit from slightly more detail (e.g., 'Get the current operational state of a specified service on a Proxmox node') without losing efficiency. The structure is minimal but effective for its brevity.

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 complexity of interacting with node services and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., status codes, details like 'active' or 'inactive'), potential errors, or dependencies. For a tool with two required parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use, making this inadequate for reliable agent invocation.

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 'service') clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of valid node or service names, or how they relate to the state retrieval. Since the schema provides full coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 service state' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_get_node_service_state'. While it indicates a read operation on a service, it lacks specificity about what 'service state' entails (e.g., running, stopped, enabled) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_node_service_start' or 'pve_node_service_stop' that manage services. This minimal description provides only basic intent without clarifying scope or output.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing node and service names), contrast with sibling tools that list services (like 'pve_list_node_services') or manage service states, or specify use cases (e.g., monitoring, troubleshooting). Without such context, an agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.

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