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, and it does real work: it discloses the anomaly-flagging behavior (out-of-sync members, unencrypted/unauthenticated heartbeats, single heartbeat interface, no session pickup), which tells the agent what negative results mean. It does not state that the call is strictly read-only, nor any auth/rate-limit constraints, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences: the first enumerates returned fields, the second the warning flags. It is front-loaded ('High availability: the mode...') and free of filler, though the first sentence is a very long list that could be structured more scannably.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does so thoroughly, including diagnostic flags an agent would otherwise misinterpret. The only real gap is absent usage/prerequisite guidance for a status tool.

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% — the single vdom parameter is fully documented in the schema with its default and meaning. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific resource (HA cluster state) and enumerates exactly what it reports: mode, group, heartbeat/monitored interfaces, member roles/priorities/uptime, and sync state. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_system_status or get_interface_status, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 text is entirely about what the tool returns; it gives no when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no alternative tools for related diagnostics (e.g., get_system_status). Usage is only implied by the tool name and content.

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