mission.cluster_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers read-only behavior, required scope (mission.cluster_health), governance by Arbiter constitutional policy, and ProofLink cryptographic receipt sealing. This is rich contextual information beyond a simple read-only hint.

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 compact, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The additional sentences convey important scope, policy, and receipt information without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter health-check tool with no output schema. The description fully covers what the tool does, its read-only nature, required permissions, and governing policies. The agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly among many health-related siblings.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not explain parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.

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 states the tool returns live cluster health, using a specific verb ('return') and resource ('cluster health'). It also explicitly labels itself as read-only mission scope, distinguishing it from execution or remediation tools. The alias note adds additional clarity.

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?

The description specifies that this is a read-only health check and explicitly notes it does not grant execution or remediation rights, implying it should be used for observation only. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the read-only framing provides clear usage context.

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