get_ha_status

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

The description indicates a read-only operation ('Get'), which aligns with expectations. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a simple read, this is adequate but minimal.

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 concise sentence of 65 characters. It front-loads the purpose and lists key output fields without unnecessary words.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could optionally mention the output format (e.g., JSON object), but the output schema likely covers that. Context about when to use (e.g., for monitoring HA health) is missing but not critical for a simple getter.

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?

The tool has no parameters and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds value by listing the returned status fields ('active, quorum, manager status'), which clarifies the output beyond the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('HA manager status'), and explicitly lists the fields returned ('active, quorum, manager status'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_ha_manager_status by focusing on the overall manager 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_ha_manager_status or other cluster status tools. The agent receives no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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