e2e_get_node_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval and lists the metric categories returned, which is genuine value. However, it does not disclose return shape, whether a health status/threshold is included, latency, or any auth requirements, leaving real gaps.

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 verb first and the key metric examples parenthetically scoped. No filler, though it is minimal enough that it never capitalizes on the brevity to add routing or behavioral detail.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description should do more. It adequately signals a read operation and the returned metric families, but omits usage context and return structure, leaving it only minimally sufficient for a 3-parameter getter.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so node_id, location, and project_id are already documented in the schema. The phrase 'for a node' reinforces that node_id targets the entity, but the description adds no syntax, format, or interaction details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('server health information and metrics') and even enumerates the concrete metrics (CPU, memory, disk). This clearly differentiates it from e2e_get_node in spirit, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as e2e_get_node or e2e_list_nodes. The agent must infer when health metrics are appropriate rather than node metadata.

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