proxmox_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read operation and it discloses the return content ('resource usage summary'), but it says nothing about authentication requirements, permissions, cluster-connectivity caveats, or output shape beyond that phrase. Adequate but thin for an unannotated tool.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource and ends with the payload detail. No filler, no redundancy.

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 tool is simple (one required param) and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the essential what-and-what-you-get, leaving only usage routing unaddressed, which is a minor completeness gap rather than a critical one.

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?

There is one parameter ('instance') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming guidance for selecting the instance, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('List') and resource ('every node in a Proxmox VE cluster') plus the returned payload ('resource usage summary'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like proxmox_vms, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The agent must infer from the resource name that this lists cluster nodes, and the description never mentions exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools such as proxmox_vms or proxmox_tasks.

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