pve_get_node_disks

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data fields (model, serial, size, etc.), which is useful, but it does not mention any behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, required permissions, or potential side effects. The lack of contradiction with annotations makes this a neutral score.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key attributes. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter, and an output schema exists, which covers return structure. The description is terse but adequately covers the essential context for a node disk listing tool, though it lacks any caveats about edge cases or error conditions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'node' parameter. The description only says 'on a node' without specifying the format (e.g., hostname, IP, or node ID) or any constraints. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently populate the parameter.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving physical disk information from a node, listing specific attributes such as model, serial, size, type, S.M.A.R.T. health, and wear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pve_get_vm_disks, which targets VM disks, and pve_get_storage, which covers storage pools.

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 implies the tool is used to get physical disk details for a node, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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