get_ha_status

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

Annotations already disclose read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds context beyond them by naming the exact underlying command ('show high-availability state') and the returned information (state and peer information). It does not detail output format, but the described behavior is clear and consistent with annotations.

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 compact sentences, with the read-only nature flagged first, then purpose, then the exact command. 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?

The simple one-parameter read-only tool is well described: purpose, target, exact command, and general return content. No output schema exists, but 'state and peer information' gives an agent enough expectation, and the optional firewall parameter is covered by the schema.

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 schema fully covers the only parameter (firewall) with a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline 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 ('Retrieves'), the resource ('high-availability (HA) state and peer information'), and the target ('the firewall'). This differentiates it from nearby get_* and panorama_* siblings, and it names the exact command executed.

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 clearly establishes the intended use for reading HA state and peer information from a firewall, and the read-only flag sets expectations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but there is no obvious HA-status sibling and the firewall context is explicit.

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