Diagnoses node pressure by checking memory, disk, and PID conditions, comparing allocatable vs requested vs used, and exposing overcommit, taints, and cordons to pinpoint resource constraints.
Node conditions (Memory/Disk/PID pressure), allocatable vs requested vs used, overcommit, taints, cordons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It lists the output content in useful detail, but it does not disclose whether a node parameter is required, whether data is live or cached, or what happens when no node is specified. This is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 compact, front-loaded phrase that packs many relevant terms into one sentence. It is efficiently written, though its fragmented structure is more of a tag cloud than a proper explanatory sentence.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and a potentially ambiguous sibling tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context, return format, and clarification of the relationship to get_resource_pressure, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly based on this description alone.
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 input schema has a single 'node' parameter with no description and 0% schema coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it fails to clarify whether the node name is required, what format it should take, or what omitting it means. The parameter name is self-explanatory but the description adds no semantic value.
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 identifies the resource (node) and the specific data categories returned: memory/disk/PID pressure, allocatable vs requested vs used, overcommit, taints, and cordons. It is more than a tautology and gives an agent a concrete idea of what the tool covers, though it lacks an explicit verb.
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 tool versus alternatives such as the closely named get_resource_pressure sibling. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to guess which pressure-related tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.