cluster_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by explaining how to interpret the result — the 'quorate' field in the type=cluster row signals whether quorum exists — which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists to carry it. It omits auth/pagination context, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with a [READ] tag and the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by the one output field that matters. The Args block is slightly mechanical but not wasteful; nothing reads as padding.

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 read-only single-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key return field, and the parameter's origin. The main gap is routing guidance relative to the many status-like siblings, but the operational essentials are present.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does minimally by defining 'target' as the Proxmox target name from config, which the schema does not say. It does not explain behavior when target is omitted (default null), leaving the main ambiguity of this single optional param unresolved.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Return cluster membership + quorum status'), which is concrete and distinct from a bare restatement. It doesn't explicitly contrast with near-siblings like ha_status or cluster_resources, so the agent must infer the boundary, but the scope is clear enough.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as ha_status, cluster_resources, or node_status, which overlap heavily with this tool's domain. Usage is only weakly implied by the read tag and resource name.

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