coredns_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what the check inspects (pod status, replica count, restart rate), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, or how failures are surfaced.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that identifies the operation and enumerates the key signals checked. Every phrase contributes useful information with no waste.

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 zero-parameter health-check tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the conceptual return values (pod status, replica count, restart rate). It could be more complete by clarifying what constitutes a healthy versus unhealthy result or confirming the read-only nature of the check.

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 score is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed for a no-argument health check.

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 states a specific verb ('health check') and resource ('CoreDNS'), and lists the concrete signals it reports: pod status, replica count, and restart rate. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as debug_dns_config or list_pods, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Quick CoreDNS health check' implies the tool is for a fast health assessment, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like debug_dns_config or list_pods. Usage is therefore implied rather than stated.

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