run_cluster_check

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It indicates a read-only aggregation but does not explain the boolean parameters or the storage threshold, nor does it mention the return format or potential failures (e.g., if the cluster is unreachable). This leaves important behavioral aspects undocumented.

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?

A single, densely informative sentence with no redundant words, front-loaded with the key action.

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 description is adequate for a simple aggregation tool, but it omits return value structure and the meaning of the boolean toggles. Given no output schema and no annotations, the context is only partially complete; the agent may not know what a 'readiness state' looks like or how to interpret the result.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It names three components corresponding to check_quorum, check_storage, and check_node_health, but does not explain the boolean toggling semantics or the purpose of min_free_storage_bytes beyond what the parameter name implies. The description adds some value but not complete mapping.

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 ('Aggregate') and clearly names the resource (cluster readiness state) with concrete components (node health, quorum state, storage space, task health). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cluster_health or cluster_resources which target narrower aspects.

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 the tool is for overall readiness assessment, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the more specific sibling tools (e.g., node_status, list_storage). No alternative tools are mentioned, and no exclusion conditions are provided.

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