pve_list_nodes

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; the verb 'List' and the 'Returns JSON formatted overview' note establish that this is a non-mutating read, which is the key safety signal. However, it says nothing about pagination, cluster-connection prerequisites, authentication needs, or behavior when a node is offline, so coverage is baseline rather than rich.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its scope, with no padded phrasing. The trailing 'Returns JSON formatted overview' sentence is largely redundant given an output schema exists, which is the only wasted line.

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?

This is a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, so the description need not document return structure and it doesn't over-reach. What remains absent is practical context — cluster/auth prerequisites and how the list behaves with an unreachable node — but for a simple listing tool this is close to complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly spends no words on them. Nothing is missing in this dimension.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clearly bounded resource ('all cluster nodes') and enumerates the attributes surfaced (status, CPU %, memory, uptime), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not name a sibling such as pve_get_node_status to sharpen the boundary between listing all nodes and inspecting one node, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like pve_get_node_status, which appears to serve single-node detail. The only usage signal is implicit in the verb 'List all', leaving the agent to infer inventory-versus-inspection routing on its own.

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