pve_cluster_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly identifies the tool as read-only ('read-only') and describes the return type (list of status dicts). This covers the key safety concern. No contradictions, and the description adds value beyond what annotations would provide.

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 two sentences, both dense with information. The first sentence covers purpose and read-only nature; the second covers output and sibling differentiation. No wasted words, front-loaded with key details.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately outlines the return fields. It lacks prerequisites or error conditions, but for a simple read-only status tool this is acceptable. The description is mostly complete for the context.

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 single parameter 'proximo_target' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without extra value.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'cluster's overall status', listing specific data: nodes, quorum state, corosync config version. It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool pve_cluster_resources, providing full clarity on scope.

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 a clear use case and explicitly names the alternative pve_cluster_resources for listing resources. While it does not list negatives or conditions for non-use, it gives sufficient guidance for when to use this tool vs. a specific sibling.

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