pve_get_node_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only retrieval operation by listing metrics, but it does not disclose potential permissions, performance considerations, or behavior under error conditions (e.g., if the node is offline). Some extra context would improve transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Detailed node metrics') and then lists the specific metrics without any filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the returned metrics, which effectively communicates the expected output shape. However, it lacks explicit guidance on parameter usage and error scenarios, making it slightly incomplete but still adequate for a straightforward tool.

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 one required parameter 'node' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not elaborate on what values to pass, leaving the parameter's semantics entirely to inference from its name. Given the low schema coverage, the description should have compensated but did not.

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 states the tool's purpose: providing detailed node metrics. It enumerates specific metric categories (CPU%, RAM, swap, etc.), which makes it distinct from sibling tools like pve_get_node_network or pve_get_node_disks that focus on specific subsystems.

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 usage when overall node health metrics are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative recommendations. The usage context is only implied by the list of general metrics.

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