get_node_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and specifies the type of data returned (CPU, memory, etc.), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose potential errors (e.g., invalid node name), performance characteristics, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise 'Args' section that adds necessary parameter context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and efficient, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation), the description covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error handling) to be fully complete.

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. It adds meaning by explaining the 'node' parameter as 'Name of the Proxmox node' with an example ('e.g. 'pve', 'node1''), which clarifies the expected input format beyond the schema's basic string type. This is valuable given the low coverage, though it doesn't detail constraints like valid node names.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed status for a specific node', with specific attributes listed (CPU model, memory, disk, and versions). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_nodes' (which lists nodes) and 'get_guest_status' (which focuses on guests), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 by specifying 'for a specific node', suggesting it's for detailed status of individual nodes rather than listing all nodes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'list_nodes' (for overview) or 'get_guest_status' (for guest-specific status). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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