pdm_resources_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It labels the tool as 'DIAGNOSE (LOW)' implying low impact, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive. It does not describe side effects, the nature of the aggregated data, or whether calling it triggers any network requests beyond the target.

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 very concise—two sentences. The first sentence effectively front-loads the purpose and scope with examples. It earns its space, though the config requirement sentence could be integrated or placed after a clearer action statement.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks context about the 'aggregated' nature (which resources are aggregated across what), the meaning of 'LOW' severity, and how this tool relates to sibling status tools. The description is minimally adequate for a simple 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (proximo_target), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter details beyond the schema; it only mentions a config requirement, which is redundant. No improvement over schema information.

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 provides 'aggregated fleet status counters' with examples (running VMs, LXCs, failed remotes), distinguishing it from per-resource tools like pdm_pve_qemu_list. The 'DIAGNOSE (LOW)' prefix signals a diagnostic function, but it could contrast more explicitly with similar PDM status tools (e.g., pdm_node_status, pdm_pve_cluster_status).

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Needs PROXIMO_PDM_* config') but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like pdm_pve_resources or pdm_resources_list. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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