ha_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The explicit '(read-only)' marker is useful and indicates a non-mutating operation, but the description does not say what status information is returned, whether HA must be configured, or what the output looks like.

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: 'HA status (read-only)' states the resource and key behavioral trait with no filler. For a zero-parameter tool, this is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should help the agent infer what a successful call yields. It only says 'HA status (read-only)', leaving the return value unspecified; this is minimally sufficient but not complete.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for any parameter 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?

The description names a specific resource, HA status, and marks it read-only, which signals a retrieval operation. It is clear enough for an agent to guess its purpose, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool ha_show, which may serve a similar role.

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 ha_status versus ha_show, vrrp_show, or other status commands. No alternatives, preconditions, or use cases are mentioned, so the agent must guess the appropriate selection context.

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