health_cluster

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the HTTP endpoint probed, the meaning of a 503 response, and that the result is a single structured answer with an aggregate 'healthy' verdict. It does not cover error/auth behavior, but the read-only safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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 purpose and status-code semantics are front-loaded in the first line, and the parameter note is compact. The multi-line layout adds minor visual noise but no filler sentences.

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 usefully sketches the return shape (combined liveness/readiness plus an overall 'healthy' verdict) and gives the failure signal (503=degraded). For a zero-required-param read probe this is nearly complete; only error/auth conditions are unaddressed.

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% for the single 'target' parameter, so the description carries the burden and does so: 'MinIO target name from config; omit for the default.' That explains both the value source and the omission/default behavior, which the bare anyOf[string,null] schema does not.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Cluster write-quorum health'), gives the underlying endpoint, and explains the 503=degraded signal. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the health_live/health_ready siblings by noting it folds liveness and readiness into one structured answer, though that differentiation is phrased loosely rather than as an explicit contrast.

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 '[READ]' tag and 503 semantics imply it is a diagnostic probe, and the mention of liveness/readiness suggests it can substitute for those sibling calls. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to health_live, health_ready, cluster_status, or healing_health, leaving selection to inference.

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