fleet_overview

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safety profile, and the [READ] tag and 'one-shot ... headline' wording add useful context that this is an aggregated read rather than a raw detail dump. However, it doesn't describe pagination, freshness, or whether the sections can be individually expanded, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotation.

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 front-loaded sentences plus a compact Args block; no waste. The lead sentence names the operation and its three coverage areas before the usage instruction.

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 single-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, trigger, and the parameter's meaning. The only minor gap is that the shape/format of the returned 'headline' sections is not characterized.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single parameter. It does so fully: 'target: MinIO target name from config; omit for the default,' explaining both the source of valid values and the default-omission behavior.

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 composite resource: a 'one-shot deployment overview' covering health, capacity, and exposure. The 'call this first' framing implicitly differentiates it from the many granular siblings (health_live, capacity_rca, bucket_exposure_audit), though it doesn't name any of them directly.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this first on any broad "how is my object storage doing" question.' It provides clear entry-point context but does not state when to skip it in favor of the narrower sibling tools.

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