fleet_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It does declare the tool is [READ] (non-mutating), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose response format/size, potential latency of a 'one-shot' overview across endpoints, or any auth/credential requirements. The read-only disclosure is good but coverage is partial.

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?

Exceptionally tight and well-structured. A clear [READ] tag, a single-line summary of what it returns, a usage directive, then the Args section. Three short sentences, zero filler, all earning their place.

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 one-param read-only overview tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, this description covers purpose, usage timing, read-only nature, and the parameter. What's missing is a hint about output richness (does it include per-endpoint breakdowns?), but for the tool's simplicity the coverage is quite good. The read-only marker and target param explanation address the main ambiguity points.

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 must compensate. The single 'target' param is explained: 'MinIO target name from config; omit for the default.' This clarifies it's optional, where it comes from, and the omit behavior. Good compensation for a tool with one 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?

The description clearly states it's a 'one-shot deployment overview' covering 'health + capacity + exposure headline' with an explicit [READ] marker. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like fleet_scope and fleet_region, though the word 'overview' and combination of health/capacity/exposure implies a scope beyond those. Purpose is specific and 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?

Explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Call this first on any broad how is my object storage doing question.' This tells the agent precisely when to use it and frames it as an entry point for broad queries, distinguishing it from more granular sibling tools. Strong guidance.

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