List Proxmox nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (status, CPU, memory, uptime, role), which is behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not mention any additional behavioral traits, but none are 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?

A single sentence that is clear and front-loaded. It immediately states the action ('List all nodes') and the key information fields. No wasted words.

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 simple nature of the tool (no parameters, clear annotations), the description is complete. It explains what the tool lists and what fields are returned. Without an output schema, mentioning the fields is sufficient. Minor gap: it could note that the output is a list, but implied.

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 no parameters, so the schema is empty. The description does not need to add parameter meaning; it correctly indicates no input is required. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

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 lists all nodes in the cluster with specific attributes (status, CPU, memory, uptime, role). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node_status or get_cluster_status, which operate on individual nodes or cluster-level status.

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 getting an overview of all nodes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_node_status (for a single node) or get_cluster_status (for cluster health). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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