ray_cluster_resources

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the '[READ]' prefix merely repeats that. The description does add real value by enumerating the data categories returned (capacity, headroom, pending placement groups), but discloses nothing about permissions, cost, or how stale/live the snapshot is.

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 short, front-loaded lines with the action and payload stated first and no filler. The 'Args:' block is slightly formal for a single optional parameter but costs almost nothing.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source of return information, and it gives only a terse summary of the payload without structure, units, or interpretation of 'headroom'. It is sufficient to call correctly but not sufficient to use the result confidently.

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 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter, and it does: 'target: Inference target name from config; omit for the default' explains both the source of valid values (the config) and the defaulting behavior. Minor gap: it does not say whether the name matches a config key or a display name.

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 a concrete resource scope (cluster-wide CPU/GPU capacity, headroom, pending placement groups) rather than restating the name, so an agent can tell it apart from utilization-style siblings like gpu_utilization. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with ray_dashboard_status or engine_inventory, which also report cluster state.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite a crowded sibling set (gpu_utilization, ray_dashboard_status, engine_inventory, diagnose_low_utilization) that overlaps in subject matter. Usage is only implied by the word 'capacity'.

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