pve_get_node_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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what 'status and statistics' includes (e.g., CPU/memory usage, uptime, load), whether it requires special permissions, or how the data is formatted. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 5 words ('Get node status and statistics'), with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'status and statistics' specifically includes, how the data is structured, or what the agent can expect in return. Given the complexity of node monitoring data and the lack of structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the return values.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'node' clearly documented as 'Node name'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a 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 node status and statistics' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('node status and statistics'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'pve_get_node_service_state', 'pve_get_node_report', or 'pve_get_node_storage_status', which also retrieve node-related information but focus on different aspects.

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_service_state', 'pve_get_node_report'), there's no indication of what specific 'status and statistics' this tool provides or when it's preferred over other node-related get tools.

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