ha_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the return format, edge case when HA is not configured, and parameter usage. However, it does not mention performance characteristics or authentication requirements, which are minor gaps.

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 concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, includes a structured args list, and covers key behaviors in a few sentences.

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 adequately covers the return format and edge case. It does not elaborate on entry structure, but this is likely documented elsewhere or inferable. The description is complete enough for its complexity.

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 schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the description compensates by explaining 'target' as a Proxmox target name from config. This adds meaning but does not specify possible values or that the parameter is optional (though default null implies it).

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 is a read operation ('[READ]') targeting current HA status entries, with specific return format and behavior when HA is absent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ha_resource_list by focusing on status rather than resource listing.

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 implies usage for reading HA status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ha_resource_list or other status tools. No when-not-to-use or context-based recommendations are given.

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