pve_ha_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get HA cluster status' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the status information returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 ('Get HA cluster status'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. For a simple tool with no parameters, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.

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 complexity of HA cluster systems and the lack of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'HA cluster status' entails (e.g., node health, resource states, quorum information) or what the return format looks like. For a status-checking tool in a critical infrastructure context, more context is needed to understand what information it provides.

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 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, but with no parameters required, this is acceptable. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 cluster status' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('HA cluster status'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_cluster_status' or 'pve_get_ha_group', leaving ambiguity about what specific HA status information this provides versus other cluster-related tools.

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 many sibling tools related to clusters, HA, and status (e.g., 'pve_cluster_status', 'pve_get_ha_group', 'pve_get_ha_resource'), there's no indication of when this specific HA status tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other status-checking tools.

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