pve_node_service_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It includes '(read)' which indicates no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it modifies nothing. The description is minimal but acceptable for a simple read operation. It could be improved by confirming that no changes are made.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the essential information: the action, the resource, and that it's a read. There is no superfluous text.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not define what constitutes a 'service' in the PVE context, nor does it explain the expected format of the service parameter. The output schema likely provides return value details, so completeness is borderline sufficient.

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 low (33%: only proximo_target has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters. For example, it does not explain that 'service' is the name of a systemd service or that 'node' defaults to the local node. The description should compensate for the schema gaps but does not.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'current state of a single service on a PVE node'. It also explicitly marks it as a read operation. Among sibling tools like pve_node_services_list (which lists all services) and pve_node_service_control (which controls a service), this tool is distinctly for checking status of a single service.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred contexts, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Sibling tools like pve_node_services_list or pve_node_service_control are not compared or distinguished.

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