pool_patch_ha_posture

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 further by stating findings carry a 'cause + action' per item and enumerating the four condition classes it detects, which tells the agent what kind of result to expect from a tool with no output schema.

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 tag prefix and one-sentence purpose, then an enumeration of findings, then a compact Args block — no filler. The Args section largely restates the schema property names, which is the only minor redundancy.

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 an analysis tool with no output schema and only a readOnly annotation, the description supplies the missing context: what is analyzed, what is flagged, and that results pair a cause with an action. Adding the default-scope behavior when pool_id is omitted would make it fully self-contained.

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 parameter burden, and it does: pool_id is described as an optional pool uuid that narrows analysis to one pool, and target as a Xen Orchestra target name from config that defaults when omitted. That adds real semantics beyond the bare string types, though it omits uuid format details.

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 names a specific operation (assess patch & HA posture per pool) and enumerates exactly what it detects: missing patches, pending reboots, version skew, and multi-host pools without HA. This clearly separates it from sibling reads like pool_get or pool_list, which fetch inventory rather than diagnose posture.

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?

Usage is implied: omit pool_id to scan everything, pass one to narrow scope, and the [RCA] tag signals a diagnostic rather than a mutating call. However, it never states when to prefer this over pool_get or vm_health_rca, nor when-not to use it, so the agent must infer the selection criterion.

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