cluster_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description is safely a read/summary operation by nature, but doesn't state whether it requires special permissions, whether it reflects live or cached data, or what the output format looks like despite an output schema existing. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the operation itself.

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 efficient sentence that enumerates the key health dimensions. No wasted words, though it functions more as a label than a rich description.

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?

There's an output schema present which reduces the need to explain return values. The description covers the core health dimensions but falls short on usage context—it doesn't clarify the relationship to sibling tools like incident_snapshot or partition_state, making the overall completeness only adequate for a zero-param tool.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description appropriately lists what is summarized, adding value about the tool's scope.

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 (broker count, controller, under-replicated/offline partitions) with a clear summary verb implied. It's identifiable as a health overview tool, but lacks a specific verb (get, list, summarize) and doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like partition_state, which could overlap on partition health metrics.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs the sibling tools. Siblings like partition_state, incident_snapshot, and consumer_lag all touch health/status areas, yet there's no differentiation provided. An agent would struggle to know when cluster_health is preferred over incident_snapshot or partition_state.

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