Compare nodes

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the live metrics compared and the diagnostic conditions it flags, such as I/O-bound nodes, swapping, overload, version drift and memory imbalance.

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 two compact sentences. The core comparison is front-loaded, followed by the diagnostic purpose and the specific conditions it flags, with no wasted text.

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 simple one-parameter interface, full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies everything needed for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage. Return-value details and the default node behavior are covered by structured fields.

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 100%, and the single `nodes` parameter is already documented as defaulting to all online nodes. The description does not add syntax, formatting, or selection guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: comparing live CPU, I/O wait, load, memory, swap and versions across nodes. It also explains the diagnostic framing, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_nodes or cluster_health.

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?

It gives a clear use case: answering "why is node X slower than node Y?" and lists the conditions it flags. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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