get_edge_cluster_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses crucial behavioral details: it returns one dict (not the list envelope), lists the exact fields, and clarifies that member status is included but degradation reasons are not. This is valuable context that helps the agent understand response structure and boundaries.

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 efficiently written with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then provides usage context, return details, and parameter explanations in a logical order. Every sentence adds value and the structure is 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 two-parameter, read-only tool, the description is complete. It covers when to use it, what it returns (including field names), the safety profile (via annotations), and the relationship to other tools. No output schema is present, but the description adequately explains the return structure.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: cluster_id is described as the edge cluster UUID as returned by list_edge_clusters, and target is described as the NSX Manager target from config with a default. This compensates entirely for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool checks the status of an edge cluster, including member health and overall status. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_transport_node_status (which focuses on transport nodes) and list_edge_clusters (which lists clusters) by specifying the exact resource and action.

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?

It explicitly says to use this after list_edge_clusters when north-south traffic, NAT, or BGP looks broken, providing specific context. It also points to get_transport_node_status as the alternative for understanding why a member is degraded, which is excellent sibling differentiation.

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