nacos_get_server_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '探测' implies a non-mutating read, but there is no mention of auth requirements, whether it hits every node, latency/cost, or how failures are reported. Only the surface purpose is disclosed.

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 focused sentence enumerating exactly what is probed (status, version, health) with no filler. Front-loaded on the core action. Slightly terse, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description names the conceptual return values (status, version, health) but does not describe the response shape or failure behavior, leaving some gaps an agent must discover at runtime.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly conveys that no input is required to run the probe.

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?

States a specific verb (探测/probe) and resource (Nacos 集群各节点 running status, version, probe health), which is distinct from config/service siblings like nacos_get_service and nacos_get_config. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, but the diagnostic scope is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. An agent can infer this is a cluster-health diagnostic, but nothing states when to prefer it over other inspection tools or what triggers it.

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