pve_get_node_version

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 states 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or if it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 ('Get node version information'), which is front-loaded and wastes no space. For a simple tool with one parameter, this 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'version information' includes, the format of the return value, or any behavioral context. While concise, it lacks sufficient detail for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation without additional inference.

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 described as 'Node name'. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, such as examples of node names or format constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 version information' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('node version information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'version information' specifically entails (e.g., software version, API version, kernel version) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pve_version' or 'pve_get_node_status', which might also provide version-related data.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing node access), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'pve_version' (which might get overall system version) or 'pve_get_node_status' (which might include version as part of status). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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