get_addon_health

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the specific resource type (ManagedClusterAddOn) and the statuses (Available/Degraded) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether it returns all add-ons or only degraded ones, pagination, or any special authorization needs.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the scope and resource without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, and it fits on one line.

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-parameter, read-only tool with an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand the tool's purpose and scope. It could have been more explicit about how it relates to sibling health tools, but it is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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, and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. Since there are no positional or named arguments to explain, the description does not need to compensate. The baseline for parameterless tools is met.

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 clearly identifies the resource (ManagedClusterAddOn health) and the scope (per-cluster, across the fleet), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_cluster_health and get_fleet_health. It states the object being evaluated and the key statuses observed.

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 implies the tool is for checking add-on health across clusters, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance (e.g., 'for cluster-level health use get_cluster_health'). The use case is evident from the resource name but not explicitly contrasted.

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