cluster_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only 'Get' operation and lists informational fields, which implies safe, non-mutating behavior. However, it does not disclose potential authorization requirements, rate limits, or behavior under unhealthy cluster states.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It states the operation and the key output categories immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 health-check tool, the description provides adequate context by naming the return categories. It is slightly incomplete in not specifying exact output types or value formats, but given the simple nature and absent output schema, this is a minor gap.

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?

There are zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The schema coverage is 100%, and there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource combination ('Get cluster health') and enumerates the concrete data points returned (status, version, broker and partition counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on topics and messages rather than the cluster as a whole.

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 its use case through the phrase 'cluster health' and the listed return fields, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like list_topics or describe_topic. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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