ds_monitor_masters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a liveness check (non-mutating) and specifies the focus on scheduler aliveness, but does not describe the response format, error behavior, or any side effects. This is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. It is front-loaded, immediately states the verb and target, and contains no irrelevant information.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool, the description is minimal but not fully complete. It does not describe the return value or how to interpret the status, nor does it reference related sibling tools like ds_monitor_workers to orient the agent. The lack of an output schema increases the need for such details.

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, so the schema fully covers the input contract. The description adds no parameter information, and none is needed. Given the zero-parameter baseline of 4, this score 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 action 'check' and the specific resource 'DS master node status', with the parenthetical 'verify scheduler is alive' further clarifying the exact purpose. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like ds_monitor_workers by explicitly targeting the master node rather than workers.

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 implies a monitoring use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like ds_monitor_workers or ds_test_connection. No exclusions or contextual guidance is provided beyond the basic purpose, so the usage context is only implied.

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