pcs_status_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only status operation via 'shows', but it does not disclose remote SSH execution, sudo implications, or any cluster prerequisites. Some behavioral transparency exists, but operational detail is thin.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the command and its core output semantics directly. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 output semantics are summarized well, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits alternative routing among similar status commands and any remote-execution or output-format context. It is adequate for a simple status tool, but not fully 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 already fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable per the baseline, but it also offers no extra nuance about the SSH/connection parameters.

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 ('shows'), names the exact command ('pcs status resources'), and specifies the resource-level content: started/stopped state and node placement. This clearly distinguishes it from configuration-oriented siblings like pcs_resource_config.

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 narrow scope implies when to use it—when resource runtime state is needed—but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given the many overlapping siblings like pcs_status, pcs_status_full, and pcs_resource_list, explicit alternative routing is missing.

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