Proxmox Cluster Status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only status retrieval, and the field list sets expectations for the kind of data returned. It doesn't discuss auth, rate limits, or failure modes, but for a simple status read these are less critical.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the enumerated fields justify the 'high-level status' claim without verbosity.

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 zero parameters Aarhus and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It names the resource, the data categories, and the operation. No invocation prerequisites are missing.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is already trivially complete, and the description correctly avoids inventing input details.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get high-level host node status' and enumerates exactly which data dimensions are returned (CPU model, cores, RAM, swap, loadavg, uptime). This clearly distinguishes it from the LXC-specific and Tailscale siblings, which target different resources.

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 phrase 'high-level host node status' implies this is the tool for an overall node/cluster overview rather than per-container or mesh details, but it never explicitly states when to use it over lxc_status or other siblings. Usage context is present only implicitly, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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