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 'report' which implies a read-only operation, but does not elaborate on what 'membership' includes, whether any prerequisites exist, or any potential side effects. The description is too terse to be 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 a single, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose with no filler or redundant content. It is perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 and an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. The description is sufficient for a simple status-checking tool, though it could be slightly more explicit about what constitutes 'cluster status' for full completeness.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description is not required to compensate for missing parameter details, and the baseline for zero parameters is appropriately set to 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 clearly states the tool reports Drillbit membership and overall cluster status, using a specific action verb and resource. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools that focus on queries, schemas, and profiles.

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 implies usage for checking cluster health and membership but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or mention of alternative tools, so it lacks clear usage context.

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