get_cluster_diagnostics_report

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it performs no network I/O, is only as fresh as the last SDK contact, will not proactively detect a just-down service, and requires no additional RBAC role. This gives the agent a clear picture of what the call does and does not do.

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 front-loaded with purpose and well-organized into behavioral context, output contents, and permission notes. However, the final 'Returns' bullet largely repeats the prior paragraph's description of per-endpoint and cluster state, adding minor redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, freshness/staleness caveats, the sibling alternative, permissions, filtering limitations, and output contents. With an output schema present and zero parameters, nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly explains that no filtering is possible because no I/O occurs, which is the only parameter-like nuance an agent needs to understand.

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 a specific check—whether client connections were already broken and for how long—and clearly states the tool's core behavior: reporting the SDK's cached connection state. It explicitly contrasts this with get_cluster_health_and_services, so an agent can immediately distinguish the two tools.

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 the tool is cheap and appropriate for frequently checking cached connection state, and directs the agent to use get_cluster_health_and_services instead when a live, right-now reachability check is needed. It also notes the filtering limitation relative to that sibling, leaving no ambiguity about when each tool should be chosen.

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