pve_ha_rules_list

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'read' but does not elaborate on auth requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral aspects. The read-only nature is clear, but more details would be beneficial.

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 two sentences that front-load the purpose and provide necessary context. No unnecessary words 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?

Given that the tool has one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's role as a replacement for HA groups, but could mention that the output is a list or that it requires PVE 9.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (proximo_target) with a detailed description. The tool description adds no additional meaning for the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states 'List HA rules (read)' which clearly specifies the action and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like pve_ha_groups_list by noting it's the replacement for HA groups in PVE 9.

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 context that this tool is for PVE 9 and replaces HA groups, which helps differentiate from sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pve_ha_resources_list or pve_ha_groups_list.

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