check_node_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions that omitting node_name checks all nodes and describes kubeconfig fallback logic, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if it requires special permissions, or what the health report contains. This is minimal transparency for a tool that could potentially affect cluster state or take time.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and each parameter explanation is concise. It is not overly verbose, though it could be tightened by removing the REST-style parameter block since the schema already lists the fields, but the extra details are useful given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 health-check tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks details on the format of the health report, any prerequisites, and potential side effects, leaving some gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: node_name, kubeconfig_path, and cluster_name, including their default behaviors and fallback relationships. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema fields.

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 '检查节点健康状态' (check node health status), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_cluster_health and check_pod_health by focusing on nodes, and the title of the tool matches the action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_cluster_health or check_pod_health. It does not mention any exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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