pve_list_node_services

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 'List node services', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, returns paginated results, includes service states, or has rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it could benefit from more detail; however, it's not verbose or poorly structured, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'services' includes, the return format, or behavioral aspects like permissions or pagination. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it falls short, making it inadequate for effective use.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('node' as 'Node name'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond this, not explaining what a 'node' is in context (e.g., Proxmox cluster node) or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'List node services' restates the tool name 'pve_list_node_services' almost verbatim, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'node services', but lacks specificity about what 'services' entails (e.g., systemd services, Proxmox services) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'pve_get_node_service_state' or 'pve_node_service_start', leaving the purpose vague.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after node setup), or exclusions, and fails to reference sibling tools like 'pve_get_node_service_state' for checking individual service status or 'pve_node_service_start' for managing services, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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