pool_patch_ha_posture

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

The '[READ]' tag indicates read-only behavior, and the description explains the tool produces cause and action per finding. No annotations exist, so the description adequately conveys the non-destructive, analytical nature.

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 a clear heading, bullet list of findings, and two brief parameter explanations. No superfluous 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?

Given the moderate complexity and lack of annotations or output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, findings, and parameters. It lacks return format details but that is acceptable without an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining pool_id limits analysis to one pool and target defaults to the configured default, going beyond the schema's property titles.

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 performs a read-based RCA of patch and HA posture per pool, listing specific findings like missing patches, pending reboot, version skew, and HA issues. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pool_list or pool_get.

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 troubleshooting pool health via the '[RCA]' tag and listed findings, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like backup_failure_rca or vm_health_rca.

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