pbs_node_rrd

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

Given no annotations, the description effectively discloses the read-only nature, the potential return type issue (null despite implying data, passed as dict best-effort), and the need for verification. It also states it is reviewed trusted. This provides good behavioral context for an agent.

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 paragraph with multiple sentences. While not excessively long, it includes internal jargon and could be more structured. It is front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY' but lacks bullet points or clear sections.

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 description covers purpose and behavioral quirks, but lacks usage guidance and comparison to siblings. Since output schema exists, return values are documented elsewhere. Overall, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive for a tool with multiple parameters and similar siblings.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema. It does not elaborate on formats or constraints.

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 it is a read-only tool for node stats telemetry covering CPU, memory, network, and I/O. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pbs_node_status by specifying RRD data and notes it matches precedent from similar tools.

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 indicates it is read-only and requires PROXIMO_PBS_* config, but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like pve_node_rrddata or pbs_datastore_rrd. No exclusions or when-not guidelines are provided.

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