node_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the '[READ]' tag echoes it, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what it returns (online/offline node list plus per-node drive counts), which is not in any structured field. No output schema exists, but the one-line return summary is a reasonable, if thin, substitute.

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 output summary in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block. No filler; every line 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 single-optional-param read-only status tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, return content, and param behavior adequately. It only lacks sibling disambiguation, which is minor given its narrow scope.

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 schema offers nothing about 'target'. The description compensates by explaining it is a 'MinIO target name from config' and that omitting it selects the default, which is exactly the semantics needed. This meaningfully exceeds what the bare anyOf/null schema conveys.

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 a specific verb/resource: a 'node-level view' returning 'online/offline nodes + per-node drive counts.' The 'node-level' framing does distinguish it implicitly from drive_status (drive-level) and cluster_status/fleet_overview (cluster-level), though it doesn't name them. Clear but not explicitly differentiated from the crowded status-tool family.

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 choose node_status versus drive_status, cluster_status, server_info, or the health_* tools. The only conditional text ('omit for the default') addresses the parameter, not tool selection. An agent gets no routing help among ~45 siblings.

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