pcs_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool runs 'pcs status' and produces a summary of cluster components, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it executes over SSH, or what output format is returned.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the command, the purpose, and the key output contents without filler or redundancy. Every part adds information.

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 tool is simple, has zero required parameters, and its schema covers all parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description could do more to explain the return format, the read-only nature, and how this tool differs from pcs_status_full and pcs_status_xml.

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 the parameter semantics baseline is 3. The description adds no information about the five parameters, which is acceptable because the schema already documents them adequately.

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 clearly states the tool summarizes overall cluster status and names the output categories: nodes, resources, failures, and constraints. It is more specific than a bare rephrasing, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like pcs_status_full, pcs_status_xml, or pcs_cluster_status.

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 phrase 'Overall cluster status' gives implied context for when to use the tool, and the word 'summarizes' suggests a high-level overview. However, there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives, leaving sibling selection somewhat to inference.

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