pcs_resource_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Show' and the quoted 'pcs resource config <id>' command make the read-only intent apparent, and the description explains what the output includes. It does not explicitly say 'no cluster state is modified' or address authentication, but that is a minor gap for a display command.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the command and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence concisely lists the output categories. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple show-config tool, the description plus the fully covered schema gives an agent the required ID, the exact command, and the expected output categories. It could have added an explicit read-only/no-side-effects statement or pointed to pcs_resource_list for discovering IDs, but the core invocation is well covered.

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 six parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'resource' is the target ID and adds that only that resource's data is returned, but it does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Show') and a precise resource ('configured definition for a specific resource') while naming the exact underlying command. The phrase 'for that resource only' clearly differentiates it from cluster-wide status or list siblings.

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 makes it clear this tool is for inspecting a single resource's configuration rather than cluster-wide state, and that the resource ID is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives like pcs_resource_list or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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