get_node_status

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the concrete set of returned metrics but no additional behavioral context such as units, timing, failure modes, or permissions. It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to what the tool returns, making it easy to scan during tool selection.

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?

For a simple, one-parameter read-only status tool with an output schema and strong safety annotations, the description provides enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly. Return values are presumably covered by the output schema, so no critical detail is 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 single required parameter 'node' is referenced by the description, and the schema's name and regex pattern make the expected value fairly obvious. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the node format or that it is required, so it only partially compensates.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a node's CPU, memory, swap, load, and uptime.' This clearly identifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_cluster_status and get_guest_status by focusing on node-level metrics.

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 the tool is for retrieving node resource metrics, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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