describe_cluster_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only action through the verb 'summarizes', but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, whether any permissions are required, or what errors might occur. It also does not clarify what 'health signals' encompasses beyond the name.

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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, placing the action and resource at the start. Every word contributes to 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?

Given that the tool takes no parameters and has an output schema (presumably defining the health signal structure), the description is reasonably complete. However, it stops short of explaining what sorts of health signals are included or how they might differ from other metric tools, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to elaborate on. Per the guideline, a baseline of 4 applies when no parameters exist, and the description does not need to provide additional parameter context.

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 states a specific action ('Summarizes') on a specific resource ('Kafka health signals') and names the data source ('Prometheus JMX Exporter'). This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like describe_cluster or get_broker_metrics, which focus on different aspects of the cluster.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling describe tools. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice.

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