pve_cluster_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get cluster status information' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the information is returned in, whether it's real-time or cached data, or if there are any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters. Every word earns its place by conveying the core purpose without unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide enough context about what 'cluster status information' includes or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool in a complex system with many siblings, more differentiation would be helpful, but the basic purpose is clear.

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, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, which is appropriate. It doesn't add parameter semantics beyond the schema, but with no parameters, this isn't necessary. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 status information' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'cluster status information', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from similar sibling tools like 'pve_cluster_resources', 'pve_cluster_log', or 'pve_cluster_tasks', which also retrieve cluster-related information. The description is vague about what specific 'status information' it provides compared to these alternatives.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools that also retrieve cluster data (e.g., 'pve_cluster_resources', 'pve_cluster_log'), the agent is left with no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus others.

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