oci_kafka_get_oci_cluster_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It describes the tool as a read operation ('returns' data) and lists output fields, which is sufficient for a simple getter. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency, required permissions, or error scenarios, leaving minor gaps. The name and return description imply read-only safety.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a bullet-like list of return fields, parameter explanation, usage examples, and fallback guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and an output schema (implied), the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, returned data, parameter semantics, and usage flow including fallback to a sibling tool. The output schema handles the return structure, so no further description is needed.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds critical semantics: it explains the format of cluster_id ('ocid1.kafkacluster.*'), notes it defaults to the OCI_CLUSTER_ID environment variable if omitted, and provides usage context. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema definition.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('OCI control plane metadata for a Kafka cluster'). It enumerates the exact fields returned (OCID, name, state, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like oci_kafka_get_oci_cluster_config and oci_kafka_get_cluster_health.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance with example questions ('What is the cluster OCID?') and alternative instructions: if cluster_id is missing, call oci_kafka_list_oci_clusters or ask the user. This effectively distinguishes usage from write operations and other read tools.

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