pdm_node_status

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden. It indicates low diagnostic impact ('LOW'), mentions 'live-prove-pending' which implies async or pending state, and notes shape equals PVE node status. More detail on idempotency or permissions would be helpful.

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 succinct sentences, front-loading the purpose and including essential contextual notes. No unnecessary words; every sentence is informative.

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 presence of an output schema and only two simple parameters, the description covers purpose, defaults, prerequisites, and behavioral hints (shape, live-prove-pending). Some users might want more detail on what 'resource stats' includes, but it's adequate for a diagnostic tool.

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 description adds value over the schema by explaining the default for 'node' (localhost) and the configuration requirement ('Needs PROXIMO_PDM_* config') which relates to 'proximo_target'. Schema coverage is 50%, and the description compensates well.

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 'get resource stats for a PDM node', specifying the verb and resource. It defaults to localhost and notes PDM is single-node, distinguishing it from other PDM tools like pdm_ping or pdm_version.

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 labels the tool as 'DIAGNOSE (LOW)' and mentions the need for PROXIMO_PDM_* config, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like pve_node_status or pdm_ping.

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