pve_node_rrddata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states no state change, returns a list of dicts with timestamps and metric values, and notes that metric keys vary by PVE version. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 four sentences front-loaded by 'READ-ONLY'. Each sentence adds value: function, no state change, return format, metric variability, scope. No unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers the return format (list of dicts with timestamps and metrics), the optional aggregation, and the node-level scope. It does not detail every parameter default, but the schema covers that. Mostly complete.

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 parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds marginal context by mentioning the consolidation function (AVERAGE or MAX) and the timeframe options, but largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 fetches RRD time-series telemetry for a PVE node. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Node-level only, not per-guest', which contrasts with per-VM metric tools. The verb 'fetch' with resource 'RRD telemetry' is specific.

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 explicitly says 'READ-ONLY' and 'No state change', making it clear when to use for read-only telemetry. It implies usage for historical node metrics but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use. Siblings like pve_node_status are not mentioned, but the scope is well-defined.

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