healing_health

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

The [READ] tag and readOnlyHint align, and the description adds real context beyond the annotation: it enumerates what is computed (per-erasure-set online drives vs write quorum, remaining failure tolerance, drives healing, heal backlog/errors) and states output is delivered as plain-language findings. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only diagnostic that is acceptable.

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-loads the READ marker and the tool's outputs, then the framing question, then the argument. Every sentence is substantive; only slight redundancy between the opening line and the list of signals.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return content, and it does so by listing the specific findings produced. Combined with the parameter explanation, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret it, though the exact finding format is only loosely described.

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 must carry the parameter burden, and it does: 'target: MinIO target name from config; omit for the default' explains meaning and default behavior. This fully compensates for the single undocumented 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 resource (healing backlog + erasure-set write-quorum risk) with a clear framing question, so the agent knows this tool reports failure-tolerance diagnostics. It is highly distinctive versus siblings like drive_status or health_cluster, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing question ('how many more drive failures can I take?'), which scopes the scenario well. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many health/diagnostic siblings (drive_status, cluster_status, health_cluster).

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