pod_health_status

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

The verb 'Inspect' conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description names the exact scope (Pod 1, Pod 2) and data types (metrics, uptime, container status). Though no annotations exist, this is sufficient behavioral context for a simple status 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?

One tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and resource while including the pod identifiers. Every part adds 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the object, scope, and data types. It doesn't document output format, which is acceptable given the absence of an output schema.

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 schema's pod parameter is an enum with no description (0% coverage). The description adds real-world mapping by naming Pod 1 (rant-cast-ops) and Pod 2 (autocommerce-studio-ops), giving meaning to the enum values. 'All' remains implicit but self-explanatory.

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 a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('live health metrics, uptime, and container status') for named pods, making its object concrete. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling fleet_runtime_brief, which could also cover runtime status.

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 usage when pod health details are needed, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or pointers to sibling tools. With a sibling like fleet_runtime_brief, such differentiation would help.

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