pool_patch_ha_posture

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Declares read-only via [READ] tag and outputs cause+action per finding, but does not disclose if operation affects system state, permissions needed, or behavior when pool_id is omitted (likely analyzes all pools).

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 purpose and result format, followed by a bullet list of findings and a separate args section. Every sentence adds value; no 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?

No output schema, so description adequately covers return format as 'cause + action per finding' and lists what it checks. However, it does not specify if the result is a single object or an array, or how multiple pools are represented.

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%, so description compensates by explaining pool_id as 'Optional pool uuid to analyze just one pool' and target as 'Xen Orchestra target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds meaningful context beyond schema types.

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?

Clearly states it analyzes patch and HA posture per pool, enumerates specific findings (missing patches, pending reboot, version skew, multi-host HA absence), and distinguishes from sibling RCA tools like backup_failure_rca or vm_health_rca.

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?

Implied that it should be used to diagnose pool patch and HA issues, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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