pmg_node_status

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

The description starts with 'READ-ONLY', clearly indicating the tool performs no mutations. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively communicates this key behavioral trait. It also states what the tool returns (a dict with specific fields).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and prerequisites, followed by return type and sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema available (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It sufficiently covers purpose, prerequisites, return type, and sibling distinction. Could mention potential failure modes, but for a status tool, this level is 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 for both parameters. The description adds some context (e.g., node defaults to configured node, target relates to multi-target config), but these are already implied or partially covered in the schema. The addition is marginal, so baseline 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 'READ-ONLY: get PMG node cpu/mem/disk/uptime status', providing a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool pve_node_status by noting the difference between PMG and PVE.

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?

Explicitly mentions prerequisite 'Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config' and directly recommends an alternative: 'for a PVE hypervisor node use pve_node_status instead'. This guides the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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