pcs_resource_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Shows' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm it makes no cluster changes, does not mention connection/authentication requirements, and provides no detail on command execution, output size, or potential failures.

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 one focused, front-loaded sentence that names the command and the returned contents without fluff. It could earn a 5 if it also added the missing usage/safety guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and 9 undocumented parameters, yet the description only covers the config content and a high-level use case. It omits connection semantics, required inputs, output format, and relationship to sibling commands, so it is not complete enough for reliable 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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 9 parameters (host, port, sudo, cluster, password, username, timeoutMs, passphrase, privateKeyPath) or how they interact. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter names in the schema.

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 clear verb ('Shows') and a specific resource ('full resource configuration'), and enumerates the content included (agents, parameters, operations, meta-attributes, groups, ordering/colocation metadata). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling pcs_resource_config, so it loses the top score.

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 phrase 'for troubleshooting and audits' gives a clear use context, but the description does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as pcs_status_resources, pcs_constraint_list, or pcs_resource_config, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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