node_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly labels the operation as '[READ]', which discloses that this is a safe, non-mutating call. It also adds ordering semantics with 'most loaded first' and implies the output includes watermark alarms. However, it does not describe the exact return format or potential edge cases, which would push it to a 5.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first line states the purpose and key behavioral details, while the second line explains the single parameter. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the resource type, the primary outputs (memory/disk/fd posture, watermark alarms), the ordering, and parameter semantics. It omits details like error handling or exact field names, but for a read-only health check this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name and type with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that 'target' is a 'rabbitmq target name from config' and that omitting it uses the default, which gives meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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 operation type with '[READ]' and specifies the resource: 'Node memory/disk/fd posture + watermark alarms'. It also adds a distinguishing behavioral detail ('most loaded first'), which differentiates it from queue-focused siblings like list_queues or rabbitmq_overview.

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 the tool is used for checking node health, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool is referenced for comparison, and the only guidance is the '[READ]' prefix, which is a general operation class rather than specific usage direction.

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