get_node_capacity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full weight. It explicitly states 'Read-only and idempotent', a critical safety property. It also discloses a key edge-case behavior: an unreachable node yields a partial result 'naming it rather than an exception.' The explanation of 'allocation' adds semantic depth about how the data is computed. This goes well beyond a typical opaque description.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct role: purpose, error behavior, and allocation semantics. It is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. No redundant phrases or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return value details are not required in the description. The description covers purpose, read-only/idempotent behavior, partial-failure handling, and the 'allocation' comparison. However, it is missing any explanation of the 'profile' parameter, which is an optional input that could materially affect the query. This gap prevents a perfect score.

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 explain parameters. It indirectly clarifies 'node' by stating 'exactly one node,' but it never mentions 'profile' by name or purpose. The 'allocation' concept might relate to profile, but no explicit linkage is made, leaving the profile parameter completely unexplained. The description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific resource enumeration: 'CPU, memory, swap, and per-mount filesystem utilization for exactly one node.' The scope ('exactly one node') clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_nodes, which would return all nodes. The verb (get) is implicit but the noun phrase is precise and self-explanatory.

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 a single node ('exactly one node') and notes the 'allocation' comparison for capacity planning. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or direct the agent to list_* tools for broader queries. The guidance is mostly implicit.

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