pve_node_time_get

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

The description identifies it as a read operation and includes a caveat about the response shape not being live-verified. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or potential impacts, which would be expected for a fully transparent description.

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 highly concise—two sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and key details (endpoint, return shape, verification status). No extraneous information is included.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and mentions the output schema's shape, which is sufficient for a simple read tool. Given that an output schema exists (though not fully detailed here), the description is adequately complete for most usage scenarios.

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 50% (only proximo_target has a description). The tool description does not add meaning to the 'node' parameter beyond the schema's type and default, leaving it undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 gets the current time and timezone of a PVE node, specifies the HTTP method and endpoint, and lists the return fields (localtime, time, timezone). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool pve_node_time_set by indicating it's a read operation.

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 the tool is for reading time/timezone but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., pve_node_time_set for writing). No guidance on context or prerequisites is provided.

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