pve_get_ha_group

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 HA group configuration' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the configuration is returned in, or if there are any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, straightforward sentence: 'Get HA group configuration'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness, such as by hinting at the output format.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' entails (e.g., settings, resources, state) or how the output is structured. For a tool that likely returns detailed HA group data, more context is needed to help an agent use it effectively, especially with no output schema to fall back on.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'group' documented as 'HA group ID'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of group IDs or where to find them. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 HA group configuration' clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('HA group configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_ha_groups' or 'pve_ha_status', which might provide related information about HA groups. The description is functional but lacks specificity about what exactly is retrieved.

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. With siblings like 'pve_list_ha_groups' (likely listing multiple groups) and 'pve_ha_status' (possibly showing HA status), there's no indication whether this tool is for detailed configuration of a specific group or how it differs. Users must infer usage from the name alone.

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