cat_master

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 a read operation ('获取' - get) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: no mention of permissions required, rate limits, whether it's real-time or cached data, error conditions, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no redundant words. For a simple tool, this is appropriately sized and wastes no space.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'information' includes (e.g., node ID, IP, role, status), how data is returned, or any behavioral context. For a tool in a complex Elasticsearch-like environment with many siblings, this minimal description doesn't provide enough context for reliable 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, as there's no gap to compensate for.

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 '获取当前主节点信息' (Get current master node information) clearly states the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('主节点信息' - master node information). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cat_nodes' (which lists all nodes) and 'cluster_state' (which provides broader cluster state). However, it doesn't specify the exact format or scope of 'information' (e.g., whether it includes node details, status, or just identity).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cat_nodes' or 'cluster_state'. The description implies it's for master node information specifically, but doesn't clarify scenarios (e.g., monitoring, failover checks) or prerequisites. Without usage context, the agent might struggle to choose between similar tools.

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