list_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a listing operation (implied read-only) and specifies what data fields are returned, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. It adds some context about returned attributes but lacks operational details.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all nodes in the Proxmox cluster') and adds useful detail about included attributes. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource scope and key attributes returned. However, as a read operation with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning behavioral aspects like data freshness or cluster-wide scope implications.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion or redundancy.

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 ('List') and resource ('all nodes in the Proxmox cluster') with specific attributes included ('status, CPU, memory, and uptime'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_node_status' (single node) and 'list_containers/list_vms' (specific resource types).

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 for retrieving cluster-wide node information but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_node_status' (for a specific node) or other listing tools. No explicit 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.