fleet_pool_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the specific telemetry data returned and the 'live' nature, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or mention any side effects. This is a minor gap for a status/telemetry tool.

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, front-loaded with the key data points and a memorable label ('live debugging surface'). Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only telemetry tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys purpose and return content. It could be strengthened by referencing sibling tools, but the simplicity of the tool makes this adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds useful context about what the telemetry covers, but no parameter-specific explanation is 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 identifies the tool's focus as connection pool telemetry and lists specific metrics (active/idle/evicting counts, queue depth, wait times), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling fleet-level tools like fleet_status. It lacks a direct verb, but 'telemetry' implies retrieval.

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?

Calling it 'the live debugging surface for the pool' gives a clear context for when to use it (debugging pool state), but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as fleet_status or fleet_operation_status, nor state when not to use it.

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