cat_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('get cluster health status') without mentioning any behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what format the output takes, whether it's a read-only operation, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 reasonably concise with two clear sections (purpose and parameters), but includes unnecessary whitespace at the beginning. The structure is functional but not optimally front-loaded - the parameter section could be integrated more naturally. While not wasteful, it doesn't achieve the efficiency of the best examples.

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 complexity of cluster health monitoring and the lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'cluster health' means in this context, what metrics are included, what the 'concise format' entails, or what the tool returns. For a tool that presumably provides important system status information, more context is needed for effective use.

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 includes a parameter section that explains 'ts: 是否显示时间戳' (whether to display timestamp), which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's basic boolean type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter documented in the description, this provides minimal compensation. The baseline would be lower, but the parameter explanation raises it to the minimum viable level.

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 as '获取集群健康状态（简洁格式）' which translates to 'Get cluster health status (concise format)'. This specifies both the action ('get') and the resource ('cluster health status'), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'cluster_health' tool by mentioning the concise format. However, it doesn't explicitly explain how this format differs from the 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling tool named 'cluster_health' that appears to serve a similar purpose, there's no indication of when to choose 'cat_health' over 'cluster_health' or other cluster-related tools. The description lacks any when/when-not statements or alternative tool references.

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