Cluster view

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it returns enabled:false rather than erroring when no cluster is configured, which prevents an agent from misreading an empty result as a failure. It does not cover why a node would be non-leader beyond the role field, but that is minor.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by the one edge case worth knowing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the key fields and the disabled-cluster shape. It stops short of describing nesting or exact field types, but for a simple zero-param read that is acceptable.

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 of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to compensate for.

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?

States a specific resource and enumerates what the view contains (peers, quorum, role, live load), which tells an agent exactly what it gets back. It implicitly distinguishes itself from fleet/node siblings via 'This node's cluster/leadership view', but never names those siblings or draws the boundary explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and content list; the description never says when to reach for this versus cron_get_fleet, cron_get_node, or cron_get_status, all of which sit close in scope. An agent can infer it is the cluster-topology read, but there is no explicit routing guidance.

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