pve_list_nodes

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint: true, so the description's additional details (return format, units, source endpoint) add value beyond the annotation. It explains CPU as a 0..1 fraction, memory/disk bytes with human-readable companions, and uptime in seconds with _human version.

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 four sentences long, front-loading the primary purpose in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences provide essential details without redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

With no parameters and an existing output schema, the description complements the schema by explaining the meaning of specific fields (cpu, mem, disk, uptime) and their units. This is complete for a zero-parameter list tool with no behavioral caveats needed.

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 are no parameters (0 params), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information; the baseline of 4 is appropriate given no params exist.

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 states 'List all nodes with CPU, memory, disk usage and online status,' providing a specific verb and resource with detailed field enumeration. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_node_status or pve_cluster_status by emphasizing all nodes and the specific 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 notes 'Applies to: every node in the cluster,' which clarifies the scope. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear and suitable for a zero-parameter tool with straightforward functionality.

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