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 only indicates a read operation (getting status), which is already implied by the name. It doesn't disclose output format, permissions, rate limits, or what 'detailed' entails, adding minimal behavioral context.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words, appropriately concise for a one-parameter tool. It sacrifices some useful context for brevity, but remains efficient.

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?

With no output schema and no annotation coverage, the description leaves the agent uninformed about what 'detailed status information' actually contains, whether the node must exist, or how this tool compares to get_vm_status. The description is barely more than the tool name.

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 input schema already documents the single 'node' parameter with a description ('Node name'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds 'Proxmox node' context but doesn't explain how to find valid node names or any formatting requirements, so the baseline 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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed status information for a Proxmox node'), making it distinct from sibling tools aimed at VMs/containers. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_vm_status, but 'node' disambiguates well.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_vm_status or list_nodes. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions are present, so the agent is left without routing context.

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