pve_node_status

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

The description explicitly marks the tool as 'READ-ONLY', which is a critical behavioral trait. It also describes the return metrics comprehensively. Without annotations, the description carries full burden and does well, though it omits auth requirements or rate limits (which are likely minimal for a read operation).

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that convey all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the read-only and core purpose, then adds specific metrics and a sibling pointer.

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 (2 optional parameters, output schema present), the description fully covers the purpose, behavior, and provides a relevant sibling reference. An agent can correctly decide when and how to invoke this tool based on this description.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it only explains the overall function. The schema already clearly documents the 'node' and 'proximo_target' parameters with defaults and descriptions.

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 explicitly states it is a 'READ-ONLY' tool that 'read Proxmox node health and resource status', listing specific metrics like CPU, memory, disk state, and operational status. It clearly distinguishes itself from pve_diagnose, making the purpose highly clear.

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 advises to 'See pve_diagnose for detailed per-node diagnostics including failed tasks', providing a clear alternative for more detailed diagnostics. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient.

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