cluster_status

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

The '[READ]' prefix explicitly indicates no destructive behavior, which is good given no annotations. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, potential errors, or what happens if the target is invalid. Adds some context but lacks full 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?

Concise with two sentences plus an Args section. Front-loaded with purpose. The use of backticks for code formatting is acceptable but slightly reduces readability. No wasted words.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers basic functionality and return fields. However, it lacks information on error conditions, return format structure, or when the 'type=cluster row' appears. Adequate but not thorough.

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 description adds meaning to the single parameter 'target' by explaining it is a 'Proxmox target name from config', which is absent from the input schema (0% coverage). This provides crucial context beyond the schema.

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 returns cluster membership and quorum status with a specific verb 'Return'. It mentions the 'quorate' field, adding detail. However, it could be more explicit about the cluster being a Proxmox VE cluster, but it is sufficiently clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cluster_firewall_status or ha_status. There is no mention of when-not to use or any prerequisites. The description is purely functional.

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