pve_sdn_zone_status_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly declares 'READ-ONLY' and 'node-scoped', indicating no side effects and scope. It does not mention error handling or what happens if the node is unavailable, but the core behavioral traits are transparent. No contradiction with annotations (none present).

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 that efficiently conveys the essential information: read-only nature, what is retrieved (per-zone apply status), scope (node-scoped), and distinction from a sibling. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 behavioral aspects: read-only, zone apply status on a node, and distinguishes from config. It could be slightly improved by clarifying whether it returns status for all zones or a single zone, but the output schema likely resolves any ambiguity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters. The mention of 'on one node' aligns with the 'node' parameter but does not enhance understanding of the parameters themselves.

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's function: 'get the per-zone APPLY status on one node'. It uses a specific verb 'get', specifies the resource 'per-zone APPLY status', and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'pve_sdn_zones_list' (which lists CONFIG, not per-node status). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 'pve_sdn_zones_list', guiding the agent to use this for per-zone apply status on a node and the sibling for config. It also starts with 'READ-ONLY' signaling safe invocation. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative scenarios, but the distinction is sufficient for most cases.

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