health_cluster

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

The description discloses that this is a READ operation and that a 503 status signals degraded state, which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but doesn't fully disclose behavior—it doesn't say what happens on degraded clusters, whether it blocks/fails, or what the 'overall healthy verdict' logic is beyond combining liveness/readiness.

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 concise and front-loaded with the [READ] tag and resource path. It provides the key purpose in the first line and parameter docs in an Args section. Minor redundancy exists (the 'healthy' verdict is mentioned twice), but overall it's tight.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and param. However, given the presence of closely-related siblings (health_live, health_ready, cluster_status, fleet_overview), more guidance on the exact distinction and what the structured answer contains would improve completeness.

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 compensate. It does explain the 'target' parameter ('MinIO target name from config; omit for the default'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. This is helpful but minimal—it doesn't clarify what a target name looks like or how it's resolved against config.

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 clusters write-quorum health from /minio/health/cluster (503 = degraded), with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like health_live/health_ready by noting it combines them into one structured answer. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from closely-related siblings like health_live, health_ready, cluster_status, or fleet_overview beyond the 'combined' note.

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 implies it's for checking overall cluster write-quorum health and mentions combining liveness/readiness, which helps distinguish it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool vs. the sibling alternatives (cluster_status, fleet_overview, health_live, health_ready), leaving the agent to infer the right context.

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