get_cluster_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get Proxmox cluster status' only states the basic action and does not disclose what the status includes, whether it is a simple read operation, or any response format. No additional behavioral traits are provided, leaving the agent without important context.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool. However, it is minimal and essentially restates the tool name without adding extra context, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for a simple read tool. However, it lacks context about what 'cluster status' encompasses, especially with siblings like get_summary and get_ha_status that could overlap. The description is minimally complete but leaves room for 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and the input schema is empty, meaning there is no missing information to compensate for. The description adequately matches the parameterless nature of the tool.

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 'Get Proxmox cluster status' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating this tool retrieves cluster-level status. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_node_status and get_storage_status, which target different scopes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_summary or get_ha_status, which may overlap in function.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool is preferred. An agent would have to infer usage purely from the name and description.

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