cluster_info

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explicitly marks the tool as '[READ]' and describes the output components (server version, node/ns counts). This fully informs the agent that the operation is non-destructive and returns specific data, leaving no ambiguity about behavior.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose, one line for parameter. No wasted words. Information is front-loaded with the tool's main action, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it defines the return fields (version, node/ns counts) and usage. No additional guidance is needed given the tool's low complexity.

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 input schema has 0% coverage (no parameter description), but the tool description clearly explains the sole parameter 'target': 'k8s target name from config; omit to use the default.' This adds all necessary meaning beyond the schema's type and default, enabling correct invocation.

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 'friendly cluster health summary' listing 'server version, node/ns counts,' which precisely defines the tool's output. It uses '[READ]' to indicate it is a read-only operation, and the tool name 'cluster_info' is unambiguous. Among siblings focused on specific resources, this tool's distinct purpose is evident.

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?

The description implies use for obtaining cluster-level health summary, which is appropriate context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or direct to alternative tools for more detailed queries. The lack of exclusion guidance prevents a top score.

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