pcs_property_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'List' and the exact 'pcs property list --all' command clearly indicate a non-mutating read operation, so an agent can infer it is safe. It does not detail permissions or failure modes, but for a simple list operation the core behavioral trait is disclosed.

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?

A single efficient sentence front-loads the command and purpose with no redundant words. Every element contributes useful information.

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?

For a read-only, no-required-args list tool, the description supplies the command, scope (--all), and intended use. It omits output shape details, but no output schema exists and the list semantics are reasonably inferable, making this largely complete.

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?

All five parameters are documented in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description is not required to restate them. It adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'List cluster properties via pcs property list --all', which unambiguously identifies the operation. 'For tuning and defaults' adds a clear purpose and differentiates this from sibling status/resource/constraint tools.

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?

'For tuning and defaults' gives an implied use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention any exclusions. There is no alternative routing, so guidance is minimal.

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