Prometheus: Auth Status

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint; the description goes further by disclosing the returned diagnostic fields and the not-configured failure mode ('says exactly what to set'). It stops short of describing output shape or latency, but for a read-only status probe this is well beyond the annotation bar.

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?

Front-loaded with what it reports, then the not-configured behavior, then the when-to-call advice. No sentence is padding and the cautionary sentence carries real selection 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the salient returned fields and the failure path, and it explains its role relative to the eleven query/list siblings. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing further the description could add here.

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+resource ('Report which Prometheus this server talks to') and enumerates the returned facts (URL, auth mode, version, hostname, external labels, retention, admin API flag), which clearly separates it from the query/list siblings.

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?

Gives explicit triggers: 'Call this first when a tool you expected is missing' and 'before trusting numbers from an instance you have not checked'. It also explains why that check matters, kube-prometheus-stack installs looking identical across clusters.

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