get_cluster_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'Details about the cluster's status and how nodes/ranges are distributed or an error message,' which adds some context about output and error handling. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects, leaving gaps for a mutation-free but potentially complex operation.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns.' Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics well, but lacks usage guidelines and full behavioral context (e.g., error conditions, output format details). This makes it minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the 'detailed' parameter's effect: 'If True, returns all node details. If False, returns summary info.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose and impact on output, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get cluster health and node distribution.' It uses specific verbs ('get') and identifies the resource ('cluster health and node distribution'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_replication_status' or 'get_active_connections,' which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for use, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_replication_status' or 'get_active_connections.' Without such guidance, users must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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