get_edge_cluster_status

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

Beyond the read_only/destructive/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the return shape ('Returns one dict (not the list envelope)'), the exact fields, and the important limitation that it reports member status only, routing degradation reasoning to another tool. The '[READ]' label also matches the read-only annotation.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, then the output contract, then a boundary against a sibling. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

With only two parameters, full schema coverage, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: when to call, what it returns, and where to get related information. No essential detail for invoking it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by indicating that cluster_id is obtained from list_edge_clusters and by clarifying the output is a dict rather than a list. This is a slight enhancement over the schema, though not critical.

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 opens with '[READ] Check status of an edge cluster (member health, overall status)', which names a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_transport_node_status and list_edge_clusters by stating its scope and explicitly noting what it does not cover.

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?

Gives explicit conditions for use: 'Use this after list_edge_clusters when north-south traffic, NAT or BGP looks broken — Tier-0/Tier-1 stateful services run on these members.' It also points to the alternative for deeper diagnostics: 'why a member is degraded comes from get_transport_node_status.' This is direct, actionable guidance for tool selection.

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