pve_ha_rules_list

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

The description explicitly states 'READ-ONLY' and 'No state change', making the behavioral traits clear. With no annotations provided, this fully covers the safety profile. It could mention idempotency, but the read-only claim is sufficient.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then adds usage guidance and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and return type. With an output schema existing, it doesn't need to detail return structure. Minor: could mention if authentication is required, but not critical for a read-only list.

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% for the single parameter (proximo_target). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; the schema already explains the parameter well. Hence baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists High-Availability rules on the cluster and specifies it applies to PVE 9+, distinguishing it from the sibling pve_ha_groups_list for PVE 8. The verb 'list' and resource 'rules' are explicitly mentioned, along with return type.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use for PVE 9+ HA rules; for PVE 8 use pve_ha_groups_list. Additionally, it advises using pve_ha_resources_list to see actual HA-managed guests. This clearly defines when and when not to use the tool.

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