get_node_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. It only states 'Get status' without explaining what data is returned, whether it is read-only, whether authentication or permissions are required, or how nodes are selected. This is minimal despite the tool's read-oriented nature.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word 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 the absence of an output schema and the minimal description, the tool lacks essential context about what 'status' includes (e.g., CPU, memory, uptime, health). The optional node parameter is explained, but the return format and data fields are completely unspecified, reducing completeness for an AI agent.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single optional 'node' parameter with a clear description ('Node name (optional, defaults to all nodes)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 status of Proxmox nodes' uses a clear verb+resource structure, distinctly identifying the target as node-level status rather than VM, container, storage, or cluster status. It differentiates from most sibling status tools like get_vm_status and get_storage_status, though it could be slightly more specific about what 'status' encompasses.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cluster_status or get_summary. There are no mentions of exclusions, prerequisites, or fallback tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate 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.