pve_cluster_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get cluster options' implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what kind of data is returned, whether there are any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation type.

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 extremely concise ('Get cluster options') which could be seen as efficient, but it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It's front-loaded with the core operation, but doesn't provide enough context to be genuinely helpful. The single sentence structure is simple but lacks necessary elaboration.

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, no output schema, and a minimal description, this is incomplete. The description doesn't explain what 'cluster options' are, what format they're returned in, or how this differs from other cluster-related tools. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context about what this tool actually retrieves.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input requirements. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't attempt to. Given the zero-parameter nature, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there's no parameter documentation burden.

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 'Get cluster options' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_cluster_options'. It provides a verb ('Get') and resource ('cluster options'), but doesn't specify what 'cluster options' actually are or what kind of information is retrieved. Compared to siblings like 'pve_cluster_status' or 'pve_cluster_resources', it doesn't clearly differentiate what makes this tool unique.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several sibling tools with 'cluster' in their names (pve_cluster_firewall_options, pve_cluster_log, pve_cluster_nextid, pve_cluster_resources, pve_cluster_set_options, pve_cluster_status, pve_cluster_tasks), but the description doesn't explain how this tool differs from those or when it should be selected over them.

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