pve_node_status

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

The description declares the tool is read-only and lists returned metrics, which is good. However, with no annotations provided, the description should disclose more behavioral traits such as what happens if the node is unreachable, authentication requirements, or any potential side effects. The current description is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 very concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and read-only nature. The second provides a pointer to an alternative tool. No unnecessary words or information.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main metrics returned. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could be more complete about behavioral aspects like error handling or whether it supports querying all nodes or only one. Still, the essential information is present.

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 schema has 2 parameters with 50% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on the 'node' parameter (which is undocumented in the schema) or the 'proximo_target' parameter. The description adds no value beyond the schema for parameters, leaving the agent to infer the meaning of 'node' from context. This is a notable gap.

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 'Read' and the resource 'Proxmox node health and resource status'. It explicitly labels the operation as read-only and lists specific metrics returned. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool pve_diagnose, which provides more detailed diagnostics.

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 provides an alternative tool (pve_diagnose) for more detailed diagnostics, which helps guide tool selection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. other node-related tools or what scenarios are appropriate. The guidance is implied but not fully explicit.

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