pmg_node_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is read-only ('(read)') and requires specific configuration. However, it omits details about what data is returned (beyond the listed metrics), error handling, rate limits, or the fact that it is a safe, non-destructive operation. The verification note adds implementation context but not behavioral guarantees.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loads the core purpose. The second paragraph, while informative about verification, is somewhat redundant for an agent and could be considered extraneous. Overall, the description is relatively focused and avoids unnecessary verbosity, earning a solid 4.

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 is simple (read-only with two parameters) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks context about error cases (e.g., invalid node), the scope of the status (only the specified node), and whether the call is immediate or may be delayed. The prerequisite is stated, but other contextual completeness aspects are missing.

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 description does not explain the 'node' parameter beyond implying it is the node identifier from the endpoint path. For 'proximo_target', the schema already provides a comprehensive description, and the description adds no additional meaning. With schema description coverage at 50%, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 'node' parameter, leaving its semantics ambiguous.

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 retrieves PMG node CPU, memory, disk, and uptime status, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource as 'PMG node status'. The 'read' label further clarifies it is a read-only operation. The tool name 'pmg_node_status' together with the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'pve_node_status' or 'pmg_node_rrddata', which handle different systems or data types.

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'), which provides some guidance on when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, such as when to use 'pmg_node_status' vs 'pve_node_status' for similar node-level queries. No exclusions or context about suitability for various scenarios are provided.

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