cluster_health_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about three batched server-side passes, opinionated status assignment, and point-in-time snapshot nature—going beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 somewhat long but well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, details behavior, then parameters. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return structure (totals, top_issues, issues_total, clusters, snapshot, customization_hint) and tells the agent how to use them (lead with top_issues, show clusters, echo customization_hint). Complete for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains all four parameters: target, cluster_filter, include_vms, top_n. It provides defaults, allowed values, and practical usage tips like setting top_n=5 for a tighter view or 0 to omit the list.

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 it provides a 'one-glance health rollup' for clusters, aggregating hosts, VM state, CPU/memory, and alarms. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by recommending use instead of stitching list_all_clusters, list_esxi_hosts, and get_alarms.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this FIRST for a cross-cluster triage view' and contrasts with manual stitching. It also advises when to set include_vms=False for large fleets, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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