Get single node status

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

Annotations clearly indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. The description adds value by listing the specific data fields returned (CPU, memory, uptime, storage), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format or any caching behavior.

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 sentence of 9 words, conveying all necessary information without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured efficiently.

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?

The description lists the main components of the status (CPU, memory, uptime, storage), which is useful. However, it does not mention any additional returned fields or the output format (e.g., JSON). For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete but could give a hint about the response structure.

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 with a clear description for the 'node' parameter ('Node name (e.g. 'pve', 'pve2')'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating the tool operates on a 'single Proxmox node'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 tool's function: 'Get detailed status (CPU, memory, uptime, storage) for a single Proxmox node.' This provides a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed status'), and lists the key metrics included. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_nodes and get_node_config by specifying the scope ('single node').

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 implies usage for obtaining detailed node status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention when to prefer get_node_status over get_nodes (which lists all nodes) or get_cluster_status. No exclusions or context for when not to use it are provided.

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