panorama_get_ha_status

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

The description discloses the exact CLI command executed, which adds behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. However, it does not mention output shape, pagination, or any other runtime behavior; the annotations already cover the safety profile, and the description adds only modest extra context.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with the safety marker, target resource, and underlying command, all in about 15 words. Every component earns its place and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 simple one-optional-parameter read-only operation woning and the safety annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool. It names the exact command and the target resource; only the output format is not described, but no output schema exists and the tool name strongly implies the returned status payload.

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 100% for the only parameter, firewall, so the schema already explains its meaning and requiredness. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 begins with the explicit verb "Retrieves" and identifies the exact resource: "Panorama high-availability status for Panorama HA pairs." It also names the underlying command, "show high-availability state," which removes ambiguity and distinguishes this tool from the sibling get_ha_status.

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 phrase "for Panorama HA pairs" clearly conveys the intended scope, and the [READ-ONLY] prefix signals a safe query operation. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over firewall-scoped HA tools.

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