Node Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that no arguments are needed and that output includes derived 'findings', but it says nothing about cost, latency, or whether the call fans out to multiple underlying commands.

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 the resource stated first and the enumerated contents after. The enumeration is long but each item is meaningful signal rather than filler, and there is no redundant restatement of the name.

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 zero-argument read tool with a declared output schema, the description supplies everything needed to decide to call it: scope is the configured endpoint and the covered dimensions are listed. Return-value formatting is rightly left to the output schema, so no meaningful gap remains.

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 no parameter surface the description needs to explain. The description correctly implies no input is required by framing the call as 'one-shot' against the configured endpoint.

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 action (one-shot health summary) against a specific resource (the configured Redis/Valkey endpoint), then enumerates the exact signals covered: engine/version, role, clients, hit ratio, memory vs maxmemory, fragmentation, evictions, findings. This clearly separates it from narrow siblings like node_memory or node_clients, though it never names them 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?

'One-shot' implies this is the single-call overview to reach for before drilling into per-metric tools, which is useful implicit routing guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over node_info or node_triage, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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