summarize_rebind_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is a deprecated alias, which implies it performs the same action as cluster_rebind(action='status'). This is sufficient for a redirect tool.

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 sentence that contains only essential information: deprecated status, alias relationship, and fixed parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 deprecated alias, the description is complete. It tells the user what the tool does (redirect to cluster_rebind with fixed parameter) and that it should not be used. The existence of an output schema means return value details are not needed.

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 has no parameters, and the description explains that the action parameter is fixed to 'status' via the alias. This adds meaning beyond the empty schema, fully clarifying the tool's behavior.

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 that this tool is a deprecated alias for cluster_rebind with a specific parameter. The verb 'summarize_rebind_status' is not self-explanatory, but the description clarifies its exact equivalence, distinguishing it from the primary sibling tool.

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 explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and identifies the alternative (cluster_rebind). This provides clear guidance that the user should avoid using this tool and instead use the non-deprecated alternative.

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