pdm_pve_node_list

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only, causes no state change, requires PROXIMO_PDM_* configuration, and returns data shaped like PVE's /nodes endpoint. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden; it adequately covers safety and return behavior, though it doesn't mention rate limits or pagination.

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: three sentences with no wasted words. Key information is front-loaded ('READ-ONLY'), making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the tool's nature.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description covers purpose, safety, config requirement, and return shape reference. It doesn't explain pagination or filtering, but for a straightforward list tool with a good schema, this is sufficient. Minor gap: no mention of error conditions or output format limitations.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters fully described. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'Needs PROXIMO_PDM_* config' is a general requirement). No parameter-specific enrichment is provided, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'PVE nodes in a PDM-registered remote's cluster', distinguishing it from siblings like pve_node_status (which targets a specific node) and pdm_pve_cluster_status (cluster-level status). It adds context about proxying through PDM.

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 explicitly marks the tool as READ-ONLY and 'No state change', and notes the config requirement. It implies when to use (listing nodes via PDM) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide a when-not-to-use. Sibling tools like pve_node_status have different purposes, but guidance could be more direct.

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