pcs_constraint_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the underlying command and scope. The verb 'List' conveys a non-mutating read operation, and naming the exact pcs subcommand adds useful behavioral context without contradicting any annotations.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds the specific command and constraint scope efficiently.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with no required parameters and no output schema. The description provides the essential operational detail — the exact pcs command — and the schema covers all invocation parameters, making it sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about sudo, cluster selection, timeouts, or SSH config behavior, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('all constraints') and identifies the exact command, 'pcs constraint config', including common constraint types. This clearly differentiates it from sibling commands like pcs_resource_list or pcs_property_list.

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 reasonably implied: an agent would use this when it needs to inspect constraints. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related status/config sibling tools, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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