health_ready

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

The '[READ]' label indicates a read-only operation, and it notes the endpoint is 'unauthenticated', which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure — it doesn't describe response format, latency expectations, or what 'ready' indicates about system state beyond the endpoint name itself.

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?

Extremely concise — roughly two short sentences. Front-loads the key info ([READ], endpoint path, unauthenticated). No wasted words. The Args section is minimal but efficient.

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-parameter, no-output-schema health probe tool, this is near complete. It identifies the endpoint, auth status, read-only nature, and parameter semantics. However, it's unclear whether the response indicates overall cluster health vs single node health, and no annotation coverage means the description should probably convey a bit more about what the caller should interpret from a positive/negative result.

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 technically carries the burden for the single optional 'target' parameter. The description says 'MinIO target name from config; omit for the default' which adds meaning about how/why to use the parameter. But it's a single optional parameter with a default of null, and the description is adequate rather than enriched.

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 states it's a '[READ] Node readiness probe' hitting '/minio/health/ready'. The verb+resource is present and clear. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from related siblings like health_live, health_cluster, or node_status — 'ready' vs 'live' vs 'status' distinction is not explained, so it loses some clarity points versus siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs health_live (readiness probe) vs node_status or health_cluster. It doesn't state what readiness specifically means or when a readiness check is preferred. The only usage hint is the optional target parameter, which is a parameter not a usage guideline.

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