Malcolm service status

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

Despite annotations already declaring readOnlyHint and non-destructive intent, the description adds substantial behavioral context: partial failure handling ('One probe failing adds an `errors` entry and keeps the rest; both failing is reported as an error'), version-specific key counts ('measured on Malcolm v26.07.1, 15 keys'), and how optional subsystems surface in the readiness map. This goes well beyond the annotation's baseline.

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 moderately lengthy but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage timing, alternatives, output structure, error behavior, and a cross-tool caveat. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and flows logically.

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 no-parameter status tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it explains what the JSON summary contains, how partial failures are represented, and even notes version-specific behavior. It also warns about interpreting empty answers from malcolm_netbox_lookup or malcolm_file_scans, giving the agent necessary cautionary context.

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 baseline is 4. The description compensates by clarifying the output structure (malcolm_version, mode, opensearch_health, per-service readiness map, 'N/total ready') and error entries, which adds meaningful context beyond the empty 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 states the tool 'Report[s] readiness of each Malcolm service plus Malcolm version and OpenSearch health' – a specific verb and resource. It explicitly names sibling tools (malcolm_ping, cluster_health, malcolm_data_coverage) and explains how they differ, so it is clearly distinguished from alternatives.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this before a hunt to confirm the whole stack is up.' It then names precise alternatives for other use cases: malcolm_ping for a bare API-alive check, cluster_health for OpenSearch green/yellow/red detail, and malcolm_data_coverage for data freshness/counts. It also warns against misinterpreting sibling results if the readiness map indicates a subsystem is not deployed.

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