cluster_health

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the '[READ]' tag is consistent with it rather than contradictory. The description adds a useful scope statement (which health facets are reported), but says nothing about latency, aggregation level, or failure modes when a cluster is unreachable.

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 read scope is front-loaded in the first clause, and the Args block is tight with no filler. Minor overhead from the bracketed tag and label formatting, but nothing is wasted.

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 and no annotation beyond readOnlyHint, the description does enough by naming the returned health facets. The remaining gap is the relationship to cluster_health_rca for deeper diagnosis, which an agent would need to route correctly between the two.

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 carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it identifies cluster_ext_id as an extId sourced from cluster_list, and explains that target comes from config and defaults when omitted. It does not clarify the expected extId format or whether target is a strict config key.

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 and resource ('One cluster's health') and enumerates the health domains returned (services, resiliency/fault-tolerance, upgrade state), which separates it from cluster_list. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling cluster_health_rca, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between summary health and root-cause analysis.

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?

Usage guidance exists only for the 'target' parameter ('omit for the default'), and cluster_ext_id is indirectly routed via cluster_list. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus cluster_health_rca or cluster_utilization, so selection between these related tools remains implied.

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