ray_dashboard_status

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

The description labels the tool as [READ], indicating a read-only operation. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on potential side effects, permissions required, or performance impact. The read hint is helpful but incomplete.

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?

Extremely concise, two sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with [READ] for quick identification. Every sentence adds value.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description omits return format and does not differentiate from similar status tools. Given no output schema, more detail on what data is returned would improve completeness.

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 description explains the 'target' parameter as an inference target name from config, with omission for default. This adds meaning beyond the schema (which has no description), but does not specify default behavior or valid values.

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?

Description clearly states it reads Serve controller health and app/deployment counts, specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ray_job_cancel or replica_restart by focusing on 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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