vibeside_cluster_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. "Inspect" implies a non-mutating read, and the enumerated fields (worker pool, active/idle counts, queue metrics, configuration) tell the agent what state is exposed, but there is no mention of polling cost, auth requirements, or what happens on an unconfigured/empty cluster.

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 no filler. The enumerated list is dense but each item adds information about the inspected surface rather than restating the tool name.

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?

Complexity is low (no parameters, no nested objects), and with no output schema the description usefully enumerates what the response covers. The only gap is behavioral context around failure or empty-cluster cases, minor for a status probe.

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 declares zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by not referencing any inputs.

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 ("multi-browser cluster worker pool"), then enumerates what is surfaced: active/idle workers, queue metrics, configuration. It is distinguishable from the cluster siblings (configure/scale/dispatch/shutdown) by its read-only framing, though that contrast is implied by the name rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no reference to the sibling tools it complements (vibeside_cluster_scale, vibeside_cluster_dispatch, vibeside_cluster_shutdown). An agent can infer this is the diagnostic read, but nothing in the text says when to call it instead of the others.

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