Cluster Health Summary

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait — the result set is filtered to non-GOOD entities and includes the failed checks, which is information the schema does not contain. It omits that this is a read-only operation, what happens if all services are GOOD (empty result vs error), and whether there is a severity threshold or pagination.

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?

One short sentence with the operative constraint ('só serviços e roles que NÃO estão GOOD') front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter detail noted above.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and an output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained here. The gaps that remain are substantive for correct invocation: the `cluster` identifier format is undefined in both schema and description, and the absence of annotations means read-only status and empty-result behavior are never stated.

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 has a single required `cluster` string with 0% description coverage, so the description is the only place that could define it. The word 'cluster' appears only in the tool name, and the text never states whether the parameter is a cluster name, display name, or ID, nor what the expected format is. Since there is only one parameter and its role is largely implied by the tool's cluster-scoped nature, this sits at the baseline rather than lower.

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 names the resource (services and roles) and the exact filter applied (only entities NOT in GOOD state, plus the checks that failed), which is more specific than the title alone. It does not, however, name the obvious sibling `cluster_health_report` or explain how this filtered view differs from that full report, so an agent must infer the distinction. The Portuguese wording against an English tool surface adds minor friction but the meaning is unambiguous.

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?

"Resumo rápido" implies this is the fast/triage path and the filtering clause implies when it is useful, so usage is inferable. There is no explicit 'use X instead when Y' routing to `cluster_health_report`, `list_services`, or `get_service`, and no stated exclusion such as 'do not use for full inventory'. An agent can guess the intent but gets no decision rule.

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