pmg_node_rrddata

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

The description declares the tool as READ-ONLY and states it returns time-series dicts. However, with no annotations, it could be more transparent about error handling, authentication beyond config, or any rate limits. Still, the basic read-only behavior is conveyed.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY', and efficient. It includes essential info without verbosity.

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?

For a read-only data retrieval tool with a clear output description and an existing output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, config requirement, alternative, and timeframe. It is complete enough for an AI agent to use.

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%, so the schema itself documents parameters well. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond stating the timeframe options (already in schema) and the output type. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and retrieves PMG node RRD performance data. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('PMG node RRD performance data'), and distinguishes it from the PVE counterpart by name (pve_node_rrddata).

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 specifies the config requirement (PROXIMO_PMG_*) and provides an alternative for PVE hypervisor nodes. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear.

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