cluster_health

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

No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, what aspects of health are checked (e.g., status, nodes, shards), or any potential side effects. The agent is left guessing.

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 extremely concise (two words), but it lacks structure. While brevity is positive, the description does not front-load key behavioral info or consequences. It would benefit from a slightly more informative sentence that still remains concise.

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?

Despite having no parameters and an output schema (not visible here), the description is too minimal to provide complete context. It does not clarify the return value, health indicators, or how the result can be interpreted. The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully defines the input. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema.

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 'OpenSearch cluster health' clearly states the verb (implied check/retrieve) and specific resource (cluster health). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like index_mapping, search_dsl, and malcolm_ping by focusing on the overall cluster health rather than indices or search operations.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or why one would choose cluster_health over related tools like malcolm_ping or malcolm_service_status.

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