Cluster Monitor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the view auto-refreshes, and the result carries a browser_url intended to be posted as a clickable link under the app, which is important for correct agent behavior. It does not describe limits such as refresh interval or whether the browser view persists.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then output-handling instructions. Every sentence earns its place and the actionable browser_url instruction is not 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?

For a no-argument, read-only UI-opening tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is displayed, when to invoke it, and what to do with the returned browser_url. The absence of an output schema is compensated for by naming the key return field.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4; there is nothing to document. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Open a live monitor of the SingleStore cluster') and enumerates exactly what is shown: per-node CPU/memory/disk and currently running queries. It is immediately clear what the tool does, though it never differentiates itself from the sibling cluster_monitor_data, so an agent must infer which one to pick.

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?

'Use this when the user wants to see cluster load, resource usage or what is running' gives a clear triggering condition. It provides no explicit exclusion or alternative-tool routing (e.g. cluster_monitor_data), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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