pve_node_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (uptime, loadavg, cpu, memory, etc.) and the source API endpoint, giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect beyond the annotation's safety implication.

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 well-structured with bullet-like formatting and front-loaded purpose. It includes a sentence about the source, which adds transparency but slightly increases length. Overall, every sentence serves a purpose and the description is concise enough for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description is comprehensive. It details the return fields with examples, covers the parameter usage, and mentions the source. No gaps remain for an agent to make correct decisions.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides context that the node is identified by its name and gives an example ('pve1'), which adds meaning beyond the parameter name alone. However, it does not explain the format or constraints (e.g., valid node names), so the contribution is modest. Baseline for 0% coverage is 3.

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 it provides detailed status of a single node, specifying the exact fields (load, kernel, PVE version, memory). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_list_nodes (which lists nodes) and pve_cluster_status (cluster-level) by explicitly noting it applies to one node identified by name.

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 states it applies to one node identified by name (e.g., pve1), which implies when to use it. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use alternatives, the context is clear: use for individual node status. Sibling tools cover different scopes (cluster, list, etc.), so the guidance is adequate.

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