ha_resource_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the result is empty when HA is not configured, which helps the agent interpret an empty response. It does not disclose permissions, return fields, or rate limits, so it adds only modest context beyond annotations.

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 definition is short and front-loaded, leading with the read tag and resource scope before the args block. Nothing is redundant or padded, though the '[READ]' tag partially duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It explains the empty-result case but omits what fields an HA resource record contains and how the optional target affects scope, leaving gaps an agent might care about.

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 carry the burden for the single 'target' parameter. It states 'target: Proxmox target name from config', which clarifies the value comes from configuration, but adds no format, syntax, or default guidance (the schema default is null). Marginal value over the bare 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 states a specific verb+resource: listing HA-managed resources (VMs/CTs). The '[READ]' tag reinforces read semantics, and the parenthetical narrows scope to HA-managed guests, which distinguishes it from broader siblings like cluster_resources or vm_list. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite relevant siblings like ha_status and cluster_resources. The note that the result is 'empty when HA is not configured' hints at applicability but is not framed as a selection condition.

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