pmg_node_rrddata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It identifies the operation as read-only and lists required parameters, but does not mention any side effects, auth specifics beyond config, rate limits, or data freshness. For a read-only tool, it is moderately transparent.

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 concise, with 4 short sentences covering purpose, config requirement, and key parameter info. It uses a list-like format for parameters. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description omits important context for the 'node' and 'proximo_target' parameters, and does not explain the default behavior for 'node' (likely the local node). For a tool with 4 parameters and specific config needs, more context is needed.

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 only 25% (1 of 4 parameters described). The description adds meaning for 'timeframe' (lists valid values) and 'cf' (notes consolidation function), but does not describe 'node' or 'proximo_target'. Given low coverage, the description should compensate, but fails to fully explain all parameters.

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's purpose: 'Get PMG node RRD performance data (read)'. It identifies the resource (PMG node), the type of data (RRD performance), and distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_node_rrddata via the 'PMG' prefix. The API path and required config are also provided.

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_PMG_* config') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pve_node_rrddata). It implies usage for PMG node metrics, but lacks explicit guidance on context or exclusions.

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