pve_node_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what happens when 'node' is omitted (the schema defaults it to null, which is genuinely ambiguous — all nodes? local node?), nor how expensive the storage lookup is. For a nullable default parameter this ambiguity matters.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the parameter clarification noted above.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with two undocumented parameters (one nullable with a default) and no sibling differentiation, the definition stops short of what an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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 carries the full burden. It only loosely gestures at both params ('one node', 'optionally with its storage usage') without resolving the key question of what a null/omitted node means, or that include_storage defaults to true.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Show detailed status for one node.' The optional storage clause signals scope. It is distinguishable from pve_list_nodes (enumeration) and pve_cluster_status (cluster-wide), but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 is only implied: 'detailed status for one node' suggests this is the drill-down after listing nodes. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no mention of how it relates to pve_cluster_status or pve_list_storage.

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