sylve_cluster_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the aggregation scope, with no mention of return shape, pagination, or cost of a full-cluster sweep across many nodes.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, and the scope qualifier is placed where it matters. Nothing to trim.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is nearly complete. The only residual gap is that an agent gets no hint about the volume or shape of results from a cluster-wide sweep.

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 both the node and context parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'across all cluster nodes' reinforces that node is optional, but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource set ('every VM, Jail, and template') with an explicit scope ('across all cluster nodes'). This clearly differentiates it from sylve_vm_list and sylve_jail_list by being the cross-node aggregate, though it never names those siblings directly.

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 cluster-wide framing implies when to use it (a full inventory rather than a single-type listing), but there is no explicit 'use this instead of sylve_vm_list/sylve_jail_list when...' guidance or exclusion statement. Usage is inferred, not stated.

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