pcs_node_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a non-mutating read operation by using 'Shows' and 'Lists', and it names the underlying command. However, it does not mention that the tool likely connects to a remote host, may use sudo, or requires cluster/credentials, which are relevant behavioral aspects hinted at by the schema.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose, provides the underlying command, and then specifies the output contents, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 tool has nine connection/authentication parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling status tools, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It explains what the tool returns at a high level but omits the invocation model, credential handling, default host/cluster behavior, and output format details.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. With nine parameters including host, port, sudo, cluster, password, username, timeoutMs, passphrase, and privateKeyPath, the description does not compensate for the schema gap by explaining connection semantics, defaults, required options, or how credentials interact.

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 the tool shows node states using the concrete command 'pcs status nodes', and it lists the specific categories of state information returned (online/offline, standby, maintenance, unavailable). This distinguishes it from siblings like pcs_status_resources or pcs_status by specifying the exact resource and command.

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 the tool is for checking node-level status, particularly when the agent needs online/offline, standby, or maintenance state. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over pcs_status, pcs_status_resources, or pcs_cluster_status, and it does not mention alternatives or exclusions.

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