cluster_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The [READ] marker signals non-mutating intent, but the description does not explain what the returned summary contains structurally, how the data is aggregated (across which nodes/drives), or whether network timeouts/healing states affect results. For an aggregate read with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 appropriately terse — two compact lines plus a parameter note. The [READ] tag front-loads the operation type, the resource scope is stated, and the parameter doc is inline. No wasted words, though slightly more structure (e.g., what fields the 'summary' contains) would earn a 5.

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 simple read tool with 1 optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It says what it reports (nodes, drives, capacity, buckets, objects), which helps the agent understand the return content. However, given a rich family of sibling tools (health_*, node_status, drive_status, server_info), the description could more explicitly define its boundary versus those to ensure correct selection. It does not explain return-format details, though no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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?

With only 1 parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It does explain 'target: MinIO target name from config; omit for the default,' which gives useful semantics about how to select the target and the default behavior. This covers the single parameter adequately, though minimal. A 3 is fair given the guidance provided for the one param.

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 verb ('[READ]') and the resource ('Dashboard-header summary'), listing what it reports: nodes, drives, capacity, buckets, objects. It distinguishes from siblings like drive_status and node_status in that this is a dashboard-header aggregate summary rather than a per-node/per-drive breakdown. Could be slightly more specific about the aggregation nature, but purpose is clear.

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 gives minimal context ('Dashboard-header summary') but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not contrast with closely-related siblings like node_status, drive_status, or server_info, nor does it clarify when to prefer this aggregate tool over those granular ones. There is only the target parameter disambiguation ('omit for default').

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