Kong node status

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

Despite no annotations, the description indicates it's a read-only GET request and lists the metrics. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, lacks side effects, or mention any required permissions. For a status tool, the behavioral context is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence to convey the purpose, endpoint, and key metrics. No unnecessary words, making it efficient for agents 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?

The description covers the essential functionality for a status tool, but it lacks details about the output format or what 'database reachability' specifically returns (e.g., boolean). However, given the absence of an output schema and annotations, it is reasonably 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description implicitly communicates that no inputs are needed. Since there are no parameters to elaborate, the description adds sufficient clarity by not requiring any.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'node health and metrics', and specifies the endpoint and metrics (database reachability, connection counts, memory usage). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kong_node_info which likely provide more detailed node information.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kong_node_info or other diagnostic tools. The description does not specify prerequisites or context for usage, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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