pve_get_ha_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. It implies a read-only operation via 'status' and 'list', but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the name suggests.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only status tool, the description adequately communicates what the tool returns: HA cluster status and a list of HA-managed resources. It does not detail the format or fields, but given the straightforward nature, it is sufficiently complete.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is trivially complete. Per the rubric, 0 params receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is required.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'HA cluster status and list of HA-managed resources.' It uses a specific resource (HA cluster) and distinct outputs (status and resource list), distinguishing it from siblings like pve_get_cluster_resources which target general cluster 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?

The description implies usage (when you need HA cluster status or HA-managed resources) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. There is no mention of situations where another tool (e.g., pve_get_cluster_resources) would be more appropriate.

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