pve_list_ha_resources

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. 'List HA resources' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify whether this requires permissions, what the output format is (e.g., list of resources with details), or if there are rate limits. The description lacks details on behavioral traits beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with only three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, it is overly brief to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details for clarity and completeness. While it avoids waste, it sacrifices informativeness, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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 resources in a Proxmox VE context, the description is incomplete. No annotations are provided, and there is no output schema, so the agent lacks information on return values, permissions, or error handling. The description does not compensate for these gaps, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns structured data about HA resources, especially compared to more detailed sibling tools.

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 one optional parameter 'type' documented as 'Filter by type' with enum values 'ct' and 'vm'. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'ct' (container) and 'vm' (virtual machine) mean in context. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'List HA resources' restates the tool name 'pve_list_ha_resources' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. While 'List' is a clear verb and 'HA resources' identifies the resource, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., cluster-wide or node-specific) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_ha_groups' or 'pve_ha_status', which also relate to HA resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention sibling tools such as 'pve_list_ha_groups' for listing HA groups or 'pve_ha_status' for HA status, leaving the agent without context for selection. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit usage scenarios stated.

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