get_cluster_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Get' implies a non-destructive read, and 'per node' hints that results are broken down by cluster node rather than aggregated. Beyond that it says nothing about authentication requirements, error behavior when a node is unreachable, or cost/latency, which are real gaps for a cluster-wide query.

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 no filler, appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read tool. Every word (vManage, cluster, health, per node) constrains meaning.

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 is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of return-value information; 'health status per node' gives the shape but not what fields constitute 'health' (node role, election state, service liveness, etc.). Adequate to call correctly, but thin for interpreting the response.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does not claim any filtering options, which correctly matches the empty schema.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('vManage cluster health status') with a scope qualifier ('per node'), which distinguishes it from generic status siblings like get_system_status or get_control_status. It does not explicitly name or rule out those siblings, but the resource is narrow enough to be identifiable.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are given; the guidance is only implied by the phrase 'cluster health status'. An agent can infer this is for cluster-wide health checks on vManage, but must guess how it differs from the many other status tools in the sibling list.

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