health_ready

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds that the probe is unauthenticated and hits a specific HTTP path, which is genuinely new behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations. It still doesn't say what a failure looks like (error vs. non-ready status) or what the response body contains.

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-loaded with the '[READ]' tag and the core purpose, then a single Args line covering the one parameter. No filler or redundancy; every element 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 zero-required-parameter, no-output-schema health probe with readOnlyHint already set, the description gives enough to invoke correctly, including auth expectations and the endpoint. The only gap is the absence of any hint about the return shape or how 'not ready' is surfaced.

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%, so the description carries the param burden, and it does: 'target' is a MinIO target name sourced from config, and omitting it selects the default. That fully explains the single parameter's semantics and default behavior, though it doesn't clarify what happens with an unknown target name.

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 verb+resource ('Node readiness probe') and even names the underlying endpoint (/minio/health/ready), which pins down exactly what is checked. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling health_live / health_cluster probes, so the readiness-vs-liveness distinction is left to the reader's inference.

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 the word 'probe' imply this is a passive diagnostic to call when checking node health, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no guidance on choosing it over health_live, health_cluster, node_status, or drive_status. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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