cluster_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions '返回集群完整状态信息' (returns complete cluster state information), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires special permissions, has performance impacts, returns real-time vs cached data, or handles errors. For a cluster state tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized with three clear sections: purpose, parameters, and return statement. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the formatting with extra whitespace slightly reduces structural efficiency, but the content is well-organized and front-loaded.

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 operations, no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., JSON structure), error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a tool that likely returns critical system information, more context is needed for safe and 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing both parameters ('metric' and 'index') and providing semantic context: 'metric' accepts specific types like 'version/master_node/nodes/routing_table/metadata/blocks' and both parameters are optional. This adds meaningful information beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully explain all possible values or constraints.

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 states '获取集群状态' (get cluster state), which clearly indicates the verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cluster_health', 'cluster_stats', or 'cluster_settings' that also provide cluster-related information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cluster_health' or 'cluster_stats'. The description only states what the tool does without indicating appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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