get_ha_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation and the empty-list behavior for standalone units is useful, but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, error behavior, or response format.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by the key edge case. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only status tool with a fully described two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it lists the key returned statistics and explains the standalone empty-list behavior. A little more detail on VDOM scoping or response shape would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so device_id and vdom are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, syntax, or scoping behavior beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Show HA cluster statistics', and enumerates the relevant data: members, roles, sync state. It also distinguishes the standalone case, making it clearly different from generic status or system-resource tools.

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 implies when the tool is relevant by naming HA cluster statistics and noting standalone units return an empty list. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as get_device_status or get_system_resources.

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