get_cluster_node_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the returned statistics but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, auth requirements, or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks explicit safety information.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states purpose and lists metrics; the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 one optional parameter, the description lists the key metrics returned but does not specify the response structure (e.g., array of nodes). It also lacks prerequisite or default behavior details. Still, it provides enough context for a simple read tool, missing only structural format.

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 single parameter 'instanceId' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage. No further parameter semantics are needed.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'per-node performance stats', and lists specific metrics (memory, ops/sec, clients, replication offset, CPU). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are cache or other monitoring operations, providing a unique purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('identify hot nodes, lagging replicas, or uneven load distribution'), offering clear guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool references, which are available among many siblings.

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