pve_get_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 names the relevant services but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether the list includes only active/running services, what permissions are needed, or what form the output takes beyond the systemd service names.

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, front-loaded phrase that immediately states the resource and gives concrete examples. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 simple one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and behavioral caveats such as read-only confirmation, making it not fully self-sufficient without annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides the only context for the single 'node' parameter by saying services exist 'on a node'. This makes the parameter's purpose understandable, but it does not explain valid node formats or that node values likely come from pve_get_nodes.

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 names the specific resource ('systemd services') and the scope ('on a node') with concrete examples (pveproxy, pvedaemon, pve-ha-*, corosync). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target node status, network, disks, or VMs.

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 that this tool is for listing node-level systemd services and clarifies the service set, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like pve_get_node_status or provide exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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