get_fleet_health

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses concurrent scans, error entries for broken spokes, and ordering by problem severity. This adds meaningful behavioral context not present in the schema or annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, an Args section, and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, and the content is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema, presence of an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: scope, error behavior, ordering, and alternative tool choice. Nothing essential is missing.

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 only parameter (clusters) has zero schema description, but the tool description fully explains it as an optional comma-separated list of cluster names, with empty meaning all clusters. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: health of the entire fleet in one call, covering hub conditions and spoke scans. It clearly differentiates from the sibling get_cluster_health by recommending this over looping that tool.

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?

Directly provides usage guidance: 'Prefer this over calling get_cluster_health in a loop.' Also implies when to use (whole fleet vs single cluster) and describes the optional scope parameter.

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