diagnose_high_availability

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

The description adds behavioral context by stating it gets CARP status and virtual IPs while checking for unexpected states, which goes beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations. It explains what the diagnostic checks, though it doesn't disclose potential output formats or failure modes. The annotations already cover safety, so this additional behavioral detail is valuable.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. It uses two sentences to convey scope and diagnostic behavior without unnecessary filler.

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 absence of parameters and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains what the tool checks, its conditionality on CARP configuration, and its relationship to HA status. No gaps are apparent.

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, so the input schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; the baseline for 0-param tools is 4.

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 checks CARP/HA status, retrieves virtual IPs, and identifies unexpected CARP VIP states. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('CARP/HA'), distinguishing it from raw status retrieval tools like get_carp_status.

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 phrase 'if configured' sets a conditional context for when the tool is relevant, implying it is for HA environments. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the diagnostic focus (checking unexpected states) makes its use case clear relative to get_carp_status. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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