proxmox_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 states that the tool 'gets' status and lists specific metrics, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm safety, mention authentication requirements, or describe what happens in error cases, though the verb and content are fairly transparent.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundant information.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming three expected fields (CPU, memory, uptime), but it does not specify the return format, error behavior, or how this tool relates to other Proxmox status tools. It is adequate for a simple getter but leaves room for more detail.

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 covers both parameters (device_id and node) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'detailed status of a Proxmox node' with explicit fields (CPU, memory, uptime). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like proxmox_get_nodes (which lists nodes) and proxmox_vm_status (VM-specific). It does not explicitly contrast with other Proxmox tools, but the resource and scope are clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as proxmox_get_nodes or proxmox_cluster_resources. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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