Load Balancing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content scope and a diagnostic use case but does not disclose return format, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving it at a baseline level with annotations present.

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 with no wasted words, front-loading what the tool returns before the usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete: it lists the returned settings and the diagnostic use case. It could be more complete by clarifying how it relates to the similarly named load-balancing-status sibling, but it adequately covers what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 names the specific resource (load balancing settings) and enumerates its contents (balancing method, resource weights, session limits), so an agent can distinguish it from most siblings. It lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from ras_infra_get_halb_status, which may overlap in scope.

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 states when to use it: to review session distribution across RDS hosts or diagnose uneven load distribution. It provides clear context but does not name alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of a full when/when-not specification.

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