ha_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real substance on top: the exact return keys, the semantics of 'configured', and an explicit warning about misreading quorum/master/lrm rows. It omits only secondary traits such as permissions or pagination, which are unlikely to matter for a read.

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 the [READ] tag, purpose, and return shape, then the caveat, then args. Efficient overall, though the middle paragraph is dense and slightly over-explains the quorum/lrm edge case.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of documenting the return value and does so, including the subtle distinction between a non-empty entries list and real HA management. Remaining gaps are minor, such as default-target behavior when 'target' is omitted.

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% and the schema itself carries no description for 'target'. The description compensates by explaining that it is the 'Proxmox target name from config', which is exactly the missing meaning an agent needs to supply a valid value.

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 [READ] tag plus 'Current HA status entries, or a not-configured signal' gives a specific verb and resource, and the return shape is stated up front. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling ha_resource_list, leaving the agent to guess which HA view is which.

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 gives a strong interpretive guideline ('Do NOT infer HA is set up from a non-empty entries list'), which shapes how to read results. But it names no alternative tool and states no condition for choosing this over ha_resource_list, so usage is only implied.

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