pve_node_subscription

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

The description discloses the read-only nature and outlines return fields. However, with no annotations provided, it could add more behavioral details like required permissions or potential errors, but it is adequate for a simple 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 a single sentence followed by a succinct list of return fields. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids unnecessary words, making it efficient and clear.

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 low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output. Some might expect guidance on node specification, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple read tool.

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 50%, with one parameter described in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra information about parameters, leaving the 'node' parameter undocumented. This is a baseline score given the partial coverage and lack of compensation in the description.

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', the resource 'Proxmox node's subscription status', and explicitly notes it is read-only. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the focus on subscription, unlike general node status or other node tools.

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 implies usage for checking subscription status without any ambiguity. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough for typical use cases.

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