node_health

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description reinforces it with the [READ] tag. It adds useful output-shaping context (watermark alarms, most-loaded-first ordering) but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or how the posture is aggregated across nodes.

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?

One front-loaded sentence for purpose plus one line for the argument; no filler or repetition. The [READ] tag and ordering caveat are placed where a scanning agent will see them first.

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 read-only, single-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool reports and how results are ordered, which is most of what an agent needs. It could say more about per-node granularity or whether it covers a cluster, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and the schema entry for target is bare, so the description carries the load: it explains target is a RabbitMQ target name sourced from config and that omitting it uses the default. That resolves the parameter's origin and default behavior, which the schema does not.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope: node memory/disk/fd posture plus watermark alarms, with the [READ] tag signalling the operation class. It is clear what an agent gets back, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like rabbitmq_overview or queue_overview that could superficially sound similar.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The only routing-like information is the ordering hint 'most loaded first', which helps interpret results but does not tell an agent under what conditions this tool is preferable to rabbitmq_overview or the RCA tools.

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