ha_show

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it does explicitly disclose the most important behavioral trait: the operation is read-only and non-mutating. However, it says nothing about expected output, prerequisites (e.g., whether HA must be enabled), or failure behavior. The single disclosed trait earns a middle score.

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?

Four words, zero filler. The resource ('HA configuration') and the access mode ('read-only') are both front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is mostly sufficient for invocation. However, it does not disambiguate between HA configuration and HA status (ha_status) or explain what kind of data the agent will receive back, which matters given the dense sibling cluster.

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 baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description needs to explain. The empty schema with 100% coverage leaves no semantic gaps.

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?

'HA configuration (read-only)' names a specific resource and access mode, and the verb is recoverable from the tool name 'ha_show'. It distinguishes from ha_set (write operation) and ha_status (status vs. configuration), though it never states the verb explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings (ha_status, ha_set, vrrp_show, vrrp_set). No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned despite a huge sibling list where HA/VRRP tools are easy to confuse.

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