Get cluster status (raw)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the content shape of the status object, which is useful, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g. cluster not found) or how the raw output differs from formatted alternatives.

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 front-loaded sentence with an em-dash list of contents; nothing is wasted. It is slightly terse for a tool with no output schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values; it names the top-level sections but not their structure or nesting, which is only partially sufficient for an unstructured status object. Nothing about errors or empty results is covered.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: name, context, and namespace are each documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, syntax, or defaults beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (the `.status` of a PerconaPGCluster) and enumerates what it contains — Patroni members, PostgreSQL/PgBouncer readiness, host, conditions. This makes it distinguishable in intent from `get_cluster`, though it never explicitly draws that contrast, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus `get_cluster` or `get_connection_info`, both of which likely surface overlapping cluster information. The word 'raw' hints at a lower-level alternative but the condition for choosing it is left entirely to inference.

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