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 established. The description adds useful context about what the raw status contains, which partially exposes the tool's return scope, but it doesn't mention potential failure modes, timeouts, or cluster-not-found behavior. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the essential content: the `.status` object of a PerconaPGCluster and what it contains. There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail.

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 adequately explains the return value by enumerating the main status sections. It is complete enough for selecting and invoking the tool, though a brief usage note distinguishing it from get_cluster would strengthen it further.

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%, so parameter semantics are fully handled by the JSON schema. The description does not need to repeat parameter meanings, and it adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond acknowledging the cluster resource being queried. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (PerconaPGCluster) and the specific data returned (the full `.status`), listing contents such as Patroni members, readiness, host, and conditions. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_cluster, but the 'raw' emphasis and status-object focus make the purpose reasonably distinct.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_cluster or get_connection_info. The description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or which tool to prefer for human-readable summaries versus raw status inspection.

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