mission.cluster_health

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

Discloses read-only nature, scope requirement, and adds policy and cryptographic receipt details beyond annotations (none provided). No contradictions. The description fully informs about behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys all key 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?

Covers purpose, read-only, scope, policy, and receipt. Does not describe return format, but for a simple health check without output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so description does not need to add parameter info. Explanation is adequate given no parameters.

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?

Clearly states 'return live cluster health' with specific verb-resource mapping. 'Read-only mission scope' and 'Alias for cluster_status' further clarify purpose and distinguish from other tools like mission.list_incidents.

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?

Explicitly marks as read-only and states scope requirement, but does not explicitly differentiate from other health tools (e.g., mesh_health, probo_health). Provides good context for safe invocation.

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