pcs_status_xml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden itself. It discloses that the tool returns cluster status in XML via a specific command, which is meaningful, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, output size, failure modes, or whether sudo/SSH handling affects execution.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the exact command and intended use, making it efficient for an agent to scan.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It communicates the command and output format but lacks detail about what the XML contains, how it should be parsed, or how this differs concretely from sibling status tools. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (cluster status), the output format (XML), and the underlying command ('pcs status xml'). It conveys the tool's purpose, though it lacks an explicit action verb and does not directly name or contrast sibling tools like pcs_status or pcs_status_full.

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 programmatic parsing and deeper diagnostics' implies when this tool should be used, which is helpful but not explicit. It does not state when to choose pcs_status_xml over sibling status tools or 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.