Container status

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by specifying the exact data returned (running/stopped, CPU, memory, uptime). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context, though it could mention if authentication or specific node access is needed.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys all essential information without unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return values. However, it could be more complete by mentioning any potential errors, rate limits, or the need for valid node and VMID. Still, for a simple status tool, it provides sufficient context.

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% coverage for both parameters (node and vmid) with their own descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so a 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 clearly states the verb ('status' implied) and resource ('container'), specifying the kind of runtime status information provided (running/stopped, CPU, memory, uptime). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like pve_vm_status (for VMs) and pve_lxc_config (configuration).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives nor any prerequisites. The usage context is implied by the focus on runtime status, but no direct comparisons or exclusions are given.

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