pdm_pve_cluster_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'READ-ONLY' and 'No state change', and describes the proxied nature and output shape. While it does not detail error behaviors or authentication specifics, it is sufficient for a simple read-only tool.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three sentences with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the main action ('get cluster status'), followed by key behavioral notes, output shape, sibling distinction, and prerequisite. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 low complexity of the tool (read-only, 2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it works (proxied), the output shape, how to get the same info without PDM, and a config requirement. The existence of an output schema means return value details are not needed in the description. It is entirely adequate.

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 has 100% description coverage, so both parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds minimal additional semantic context beyond the schema, only reinforcing that 'remote' is a PDM-registered PVE remote. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but adds little beyond the schema.

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 the tool is READ-ONLY, gets cluster status for exactly one PDM-registered PVE remote proxied through PDM, and specifies the output format ('list of dicts shaped like PVE's cluster/status'). It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool pve_cluster_status by advising when to use that instead. This provides a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for PDM-proxied cluster status) and when to use the alternative (pve_cluster_status for direct queries). It also mentions a prerequisite ('Needs PROXIMO_PDM_* config'). However, it does not elaborate on other scenarios or exclusions beyond the direct comparison.

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