pcs_stonith_show

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. It only restates the show action and command, and adds no information about output format, side effects, permissions, or how remote execution parameters like sudo or sshConfigHost affect the operation.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and target, and the reference to the underlying pcs command is useful without being 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It omits return-value expectations and usage context, and does not clarify how the five generic SSH/cluster parameters apply to this specific stonith read command.

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 already have descriptive schema fields, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; 'including configuration and parameters' refers to the displayed stonith configuration, not to the input 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 identifies a specific operation ('show') and a specific target ('stonith/fencing devices'), and names the underlying command ('pcs stonith show'). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic status commands, but it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related resource/status 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling read commands such as pcs_status_resources and pcs_resource_config, the description should at least hint at the conditions that make this tool the right choice.

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