get_addon_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'checks health' (read-only intent) but does not disclose permissions, side effects, what 'health' means, or the return format. A more transparent description would clarify that it performs a read-only check without modifying state.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. No extraneous words, and the parenthetical list adds value. Every word 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 simple interface (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks details about the output format (e.g., boolean, status per addon) and error handling, which would help an agent interpret results. The tool's low complexity reduces the burden, so a 3 is adequate.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'cluster' with a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 verb ('Checks health'), the specific resource ('common kube-system addons'), and even lists examples (CoreDNS, metrics-server, kube-proxy, CNI). This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pods or describe_deployment.

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 in a Kubernetes troubleshooting context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'Use when you need to verify core addon health before debugging application issues'). No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided.

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