pve_get_ha_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the resource doesn't exist. For a tool accessing HA resource configuration (a critical infrastructure component), this lack of transparency is problematic.

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 at just three words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted text. Every word ('Get', 'HA', 'resource', 'configuration') contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 that retrieves HA resource configuration (potentially complex infrastructure data) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' includes, the format of returned data, or any prerequisites. Given the critical nature of HA resources in a Proxmox environment, more context is needed for effective use.

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% with the single parameter 'sid' well-documented as 'HA resource ID (e.g., vm:100)'. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource configuration' clearly states the action (Get) and target (HA resource configuration), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'configuration' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_get_ha_group' or 'pve_ha_status' that also retrieve HA-related information.

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_resources' (which likely lists resources) and 'pve_ha_status' (which likely shows overall HA status), there's no indication whether this tool is for detailed configuration of a specific resource or how it differs from other HA-related get operations.

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