ray_dashboard_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's [READ] tag plus 'controller health + counts' confirms the safety profile and hints at the return content. It adds no detail on permissions, rate limits, or freshness of the reported counts, so it stays at the minimum-viable level given annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded single sentence with the read marker and resource up front, followed by a compact Args block. No waste, though the Args header is slightly formal overhead for one parameter.

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?

For a read-only status tool with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description covers what it returns and how to invoke it with or without a target. Missing only the usual read-tool caveats about staleness or auth, which are minor here.

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 carries the burden: it explains target is an inference target name sourced from config and that omitting it selects the default. That resolves the key ambiguity for the sole optional parameter.

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 and resource: serves controller health plus app/deployment counts, with a [READ] marker. An agent can separate it from cluster-wide siblings like ray_cluster_resources or replica-level tools like replica_list, though it doesn't name a specific alternative.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named among the many sibling diagnostics. The only context is the parameter note about omitting target for the default, which is invocation help rather than usage guidance.

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