healing_health

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

The [READ] prefix signals read-only behavior, though no formal annotations are provided to corroborate. It discloses what the tool reports (drive counts vs quorum, healing status, backlog/errors) and describes output as 'plain-language findings', which gives some behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't describe failure modes, prerequisites, or what happens with a misconfigured target.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose statement, then details what it reports, then documents the parameter. The list of reported items (online drives vs quorum, healing drives, backlog/errors) is functional but could be more concise without losing value. Nearly every sentence earns its 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 diagnostics/read tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what gets evaluated and in what form (plain-language findings). It could note prerequisites (e.g., requires MinIO to be reachable) but the high context coverage makes the description reasonably complete for its complexity.

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%, but there's only one optional parameter (target). The description explains 'target: MinIO target name from config; omit for the default', which fully covers the single parameter's semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the one param is well-documented but the description doesn't add much beyond what the schema field name implies.

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 explains this tool assesses healing backlog and erasure-set write-quorum risk, answering a concrete question ('how many more drive failures can I take?'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like drive_status and node_status by focusing on failure tolerance and healing risk specifically.

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 clearly frames usage context—answering drive-failure tolerance questions and reporting per-erasure-set healing status. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., drive_status for raw drive health), but the purpose framing strongly implies when it's appropriate.

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