pve_get_node_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, and the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the read-like verb 'Get'. It does not disclose whether metrics are live/sampled, what response characteristics to expect, permission requirements, or possible failure modes.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to identifying the operation. It is concise, though it sacrifices useful behavioral and usage context.

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 one-parameter read-style tool with an output schema present, the description is minimally sufficient to identify the operation. However, it lacks selection context and behavioral caveats, and the output schema must cover return-value details since the description does not.

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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, and the description never mentions 'node' or clarifies accepted values such as node name versus ID. The parameter is simple and inferable from the tool name, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's property title.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a distinct resource ('node'), and the information delivered ('status and metrics'). It is differentiated from sibling tools like pve_list_nodes and pve_get_cluster_status by resource scope, though it does not explicitly state that it targets a 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus pve_list_nodes, pve_get_cluster_status, or pve_get_vm_status. The only implicit clue is the tool name and short description, so an agent must infer the selection criteria.

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