pve_get_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of indicating safety. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description discloses returned data fields. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination, error behavior, or other behavioral details, though the output schema may cover some of this.

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, clear sentence that immediately states the action and scope. There is no redundant information or padding.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description is adequately complete, especially with an output schema present. It names the key output fields and scope. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly differentiating from sibling tools, but that is more of a guidelines concern.

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 the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and there are no gaps to penalize.

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 states a specific action ('List all nodes') on a clear resource ('Proxmox cluster') and includes the expected output fields (status, memory, uptime). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like pve_get_node_status, which targets a single node.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this when you need a cluster-wide node overview with status and resource usage. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over siblings like pve_get_cluster_resources or pve_get_node_status.

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