dio_cluster_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get live telemetry' reasonably implies a side-effect-free read and hints at the return content, but it does not disclose access requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. It discloses the essential read-only nature without contradiction or deeper detail.

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 action and scope appear first, followed by three distinct telemetry categories that each earn their place. This is appropriately sized for a 0-parameter tool.

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 0-parameter read tool this is nearly complete: it states the action, the scope, and the three telemetry categories, which is most of what an agent needs to decide to call it. It omits any hint of the response shape or access prerequisites, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials well.

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?

With zero parameters there is nothing for the description to explain, earning it the 0-params baseline of 4. The metric list adds useful context about the response, though no parameter semantics are relevant.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('live telemetry from the DIO cluster') and enumerates three concrete metric types (learned worker slopes, KV-cache pressure, admission goodput). This content clearly separates it from the sibling tools, which by name cover model listing, latency prediction, and prompt routing.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus dio_get_models, dio_predict_latency, or dio_route_prompt. The description states only what the tool does, not when an agent should prefer it over alternatives.

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