cluster_health_rca

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly labels the operation as '[READ]', details the data collected (all clusters, hosts, storage containers), defines thresholds (80%/90%), and explains how findings are reported (worst-first, with percentages/state strings). This provides sufficient transparency for an agent to understand behavior and side effects (none).

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 structured with a title line, a detailed paragraph, and a parameter list. While somewhat verbose, every sentence adds value and the structure aids readability. Minor improvements could tighten wording, but overall effective.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: worst-first findings covering specific conditions (degraded fault tolerance, storage thresholds, unhealthy nodes, host count mismatches) with cited metrics. Inputs are covered via the parameter description. This provides a complete picture for an agent to decide and invoke the tool.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'target' as a Prism Central target name from config, with omission defaulting to the default. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type definition.

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 the tool collects estate health RCA data including resiliency state, storage headroom, and nodes down, and reports worst-first findings. It differentiates from siblings by specifying it covers all clusters, hosts, and storage containers, making its purpose distinct from simpler tools like cluster_health or host_list.

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 description implies usage for comprehensive health root cause analysis by listing all collected data and finding types, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context of siblings suggests differentiation, but no direct guidance is given.

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