iap_get_health_summary

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Deterministic findings' is a genuine behavioral disclosure (results are reproducible rather than heuristic/ML-based) and 'concise' sets output expectations. However, it does not disclose safety profile (read-only is only implied), authentication needs, network-touching behavior, or what health checks are performed.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place: 'concise' sets scope, 'swarm health summary' states the object, and 'deterministic findings' adds behavioral nuance. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name beyond the naming of the resource.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are adequately covered elsewhere, and the tool is a simple read-only query with two optional params. But the definition leaves gaps in parameter selection semantics and fails to disambiguate from iap_get_summary. Adequate for a basic get-tool, yet short of what an agent needs to call it confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but does not. It never explains how iap_ip_addr and cluster_name relate (alternatives, both required, precedence), whether a swarm can be resolved by either, or what happens when both are null. The parameter names are self-evident, but their interaction and requirements are left unspecified.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('swarm health summary'), and adds a distinguishing quality ('deterministic findings'). It is clear and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named sibling iap_get_summary, so an agent may not know which summary tool 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 16 siblings including iap_get_summary, which could plausibly overlap, the description provides no routing cues, no conditions, and no exclusions. Usage must be entirely inferred from the tool name.

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