pve_sdn_fabric_node_get

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

The description uses 'READ-ONLY' in all caps to immediately signal that this tool does not modify state. It also discloses the absence of pending/running filters, which is a behavioral trait beyond what annotations (none provided) would indicate. This fully informs the agent of the tool's safety profile.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds crucial context. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 (context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose, read-only nature, and contrasts with siblings. However, it could briefly mention that it returns the full configuration object. Despite this, it is largely complete for a single-object read operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the bar is higher. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond the schema; it only restates the tool's read-only nature and filter absence. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'read a single fabric node's configuration', specifying the verb (read), resource (fabric node's configuration), and it distinguishes itself as a single-object endpoint from the list tools. Among siblings like pve_sdn_fabric_get and pve_sdn_fabric_nodes_list, this description makes its unique purpose explicit.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with list tools by noting 'No pending/running filter on this single-object endpoint (schema-verified absence, unlike the list tools above).' This tells the agent when to use this tool (reading a single node) and when not to (if filtering is needed), providing clear context for selection.

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