get_container_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get status', implying read-only, but does not clarify whether it returns a list or single status, or any side-effect-free guarantee. This is minimal transparency for an unannotated tool.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Get status of Proxmox containers'. Every word is necessary, and there is no extraneous content or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'status' includes (e.g., running/stopped, resource usage), nor how optional parameters affect the result. The sibling context suggests a broader ecosystem, but this description alone leaves the agent uncertain about invocation and response.

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% (both node and vmid have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional meaning about parameters, not even hinting that providing both is valid or what happens when neither is provided.

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 a verb ('Get') and resource ('status of Proxmox containers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_vm_status (VMs vs containers). However, it lacks specificity on whether it returns status for all containers or a single container, and how node/vmid filters apply.

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?

No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_container_status versus get_vm_status or get_summary. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or situational hints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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