system_ha_status

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

The verb 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. Without annotations, the description carries full burden, but it adds no further behavioral context such as permissions or side effects. Adequate for a simple status read.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with key information. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose. It is complete for a read operation, though slightly minimal.

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 'vdom' parameter, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It provides no extra meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'High Availability (HA) cluster status.' It is distinct from sibling tools, which lack HA-specific readings, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., system_status, system_performance_status) or prerequisites. The description is minimal and provides no context for selection.

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