get_cluster_health_and_services

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

Annotations mark the tool as read-only, and the description consistently describes safe read operations (get, ping, list). It adds behavioral context beyond annotations: mentioning active ping, latency measurements, and the difference in behavior when bucket_name is provided. No contradictions.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, bullet points for capabilities, a conditional explanation for the parameter, and a return summary. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present. The description covers the behavior, parameter effects, and return content (health status, connection details, latency). No additional documentation is needed for an agent to use it 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 has 0% description coverage for the sole parameter bucket_name, but the description compensates by explaining its effect (pings from bucket perspective vs. cluster-level). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/null info.

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 retrieves cluster health and running services, with specific verbs ('Get', 'ping', 'listing'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_server_configuration_status' by focusing on health monitoring and service-level details.

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 explains when to use the optional bucket_name parameter (active ping from bucket perspective vs. cluster-level ping), but does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools like 'test_cluster_connection' or 'get_server_configuration_status'.

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