es_cluster_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and 'Wraps GET /_cluster/health' does useful work by signalling a read-only, non-mutating call. It does not disclose failure behavior (unreachable cluster, bad connection id) or whether the result is cached/real-time, which leaves real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and follow-up with the API mapping. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

The description roughly covers the return shape (status, node and shard counts), which partially offsets the absent output schema. However, for a tool with zero annotations and an undocumented required parameter, it leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently across multiple clusters/connections.

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 single required parameter 'connection' has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about it — not whether it is a connection name from list_connections, a URL, or an alias. With the schema silent, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

States the specific resource and what it returns (status, node and shard counts) and identifies the underlying API endpoint, so an agent knows immediately this is a health/diagnostic read. It is distinguishable from siblings like es_list_indices or es_search, though it doesn't explicitly say so.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as es_request or es_list_indices, and no prerequisites. An agent must infer the diagnostic use case from the name alone.

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