ncloud_cdss_get_cluster_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context about the deprecated cmakStatus field, warning that it may be absent or stale, which is critical for correct interpretation of results. It also clarifies the exact scope of the status (broker and zookeeper per node). This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent handle potential data quirks.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second delivers a critical caveat about deprecated data. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 simple read-only status tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the status covers and warns about a fragile field. It does not explicitly say that the serviceGroupInstanceNo is required or how to find it, but that is already in the schema. It also lacks mention of possible error cases, but that is beyond typical scope. Overall, it provides sufficient context for safe invocation.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter (serviceGroupInstanceNo) with a description ('Cluster instance number'). The description does not mention the parameter or provide additional semantics, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about how to obtain or format the parameter.

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 states the action ('Get health status') and the specific resource ('CDSS cluster') with detail on what it returns ('broker and zookeeper status per node'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_cdss_get_cluster_detail (more general details) and ncloud_cdss_get_broker_info (broker-specific). The deprecated field warning adds specificity without confusing the purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the primary tool for health checks, nor does it contrast with related CDSS tools (e.g., ncloud_cdss_get_cluster_detail, ncloud_cdss_get_broker_info). The deprecated field warning is about data behavior, not usage context. An agent gets no explicit help selecting this tool from the larger set.

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