Node status

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. While the listed metrics suggest a read-only operation, the lack of explicit behavioral context reduces transparency.

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 sentence that efficiently lists all relevant metrics. No wasted words, clearly front-loaded with the tool's purpose.

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 status tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete by listing the exact returned metrics. However, it lacks behavioral disclosures (e.g., read-only, error handling), which would make it fully complete.

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 100% coverage with a description for the 'node' parameter. The description adds context ('single node') but does not elaborate on how to determine node names (e.g., from list_nodes). Thus, it meets the baseline without extra 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 specifies 'detailed status for a single node' and lists specific metrics (CPU/memory/swap, load average, uptime, kernel/PVE versions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_nodes (lists nodes) and cluster_status (cluster-wide).

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 it is for single-node detailed status but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., list_nodes for all nodes). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are provided.

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