node_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The [READ] prefix signals a read operation—helpful—but it does not disclose behavior like whether it requires admin privileges, how it behaves when nodes are unreachable, what 'drive counts' entails, or whether it aggregates across targets. This is thin for a no-annotation tool.

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 efficient—a one-line purpose plus a single parameter explanation. The [READ] tag and bold lead-in pack utility into minimal bytes. Slight room for improvement in front-loading the purpose more prominently, but it's well-structured.

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 read tool with a single optional parameter, the description is mostly adequate. It conveys the node-level scope and the target parameter behavior. Gaps: no output schema to describe return values (though it's a leaf info tool, so low risk), no mention of admin/permission requirements, and no differentiation from similar health/status siblings. Given the minimal complexity, this is near-sufficient but with clear gaps.

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 must fully explain the 'target' parameter. It does state 'target: MinIO target name from config; omit for the default,' which adds meaning beyond the schema (which only says string/null with a null default). However, it doesn't explain where targets come from, whether the default is the primary/current target, or behavior if an invalid target is given.

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's a node-level view showing online/offline nodes plus per-node drive counts, using a specific verb ('view') tied to a concrete resource (nodes). It distinguishes from drive_status and cluster_status siblings by explicitly saying 'node-level', though it doesn't name alternatives directly.

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?

It implies usage context (node-level vs cluster/drive level) through the '[READ]' label and node-focused framing, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs drive_status or cluster_status, nor when not to use it. The guidance is implied by the node-scoping rather than stated.

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