get_galera_status

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

Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent properties, but the description adds valuable context by detailing what the tool analyzes (e.g., cluster membership, node status, flow control, replication health, certification conflicts), which helps the agent understand the scope and output without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of analyses and a clear applicability statement. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (analyzing multiple cluster aspects), no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is largely complete by detailing analysis areas. However, it could slightly improve by hinting at the output format (e.g., structured data or metrics), but it's adequate for agent use.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description compensates by implicitly confirming no inputs are needed, as it focuses on what the tool analyzes rather than requiring parameters, adding clarity beyond the empty schema.

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 specific action ('Get Galera cluster status') and resource ('for MariaDB/Percona XtraDB Cluster'), with explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'get_group_replication_status' and 'get_replication_status' by specifying it's 'Only applicable to Galera-enabled MySQL variants.'

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance by stating 'Only applicable to Galera-enabled MySQL variants,' which distinguishes it from non-Galera MySQL tools and sibling tools like 'get_group_replication_status' or 'get_replication_status' that might target different replication systems.

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