ha_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return format (the 'configured' boolean and entries list), explains that non-empty entries do not mean HA is configured, and notes that when 'configured' is false a message explains the rows describe the stack itself. It does not mention side effects, authorization, or rate limits, but the '[READ]' prefix and focus on status information make the read-only nature reasonably clear.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with the return format, the crucial caveat, and the parameter explanation. Each sentence earns its place; the caveat about not inferring HA setup is essential and well-phrased. The structure is logical and easy to scan, with no redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity due to the non-obvious semantics of the 'configured' flag and entries list. Without an output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure and meaning. It covers the main edge case (non-empty entries when 'configured' is false) and the parameter. It could be more complete by describing potential error conditions or what the 'not-configured signal' precisely looks like, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 only one optional parameter, 'target,' with no description and 0% coverage. The description adds meaning by stating 'target: Proxmox target name from config.' This explains what the parameter represents and where the value comes from, which is useful beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on what happens if omitted or how the target is resolved, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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 opens with '[READ] Current HA status entries, or a not-configured signal,' which clearly states the tool reads HA status and indicates when HA is not configured. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ha_resource_list by explaining the 'configured' flag and warning against misinterpreting a non-empty entries list. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides context that this tool reads HA status, and it includes an important interpretive caveat: 'Do NOT infer HA is set up from a non-empty entries list.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like cluster_status or ha_resource_list, nor does it mention any exclusions. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it falls short of a clear selection guide.

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