cluster_info

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description's 'Read-only, no side effects' is largely redundant. It earns credit by adding the error-return contract ('Errors return a dict with error + hint') and by enumerating the full return schema, which annotations cannot convey. No 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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: [READ] tag, one-sentence purpose, usage guidance, then a compact return-format block. Every sentence earns its place; the only mild redundancy ('Read-only, no side effects' vs annotations) is brief and reinforces safety.

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?

Even with no output schema, an agent has everything needed: the exact return dict (all fields listed down to per-host maintenance_mode and CPU/MHz memory/GB units), the error format, usage timing, and a read-only safety profile from annotations. For a 2-parameter read tool, nothing critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — 'name' is documented as 'Exact cluster name' and 'target' as the config.yaml vCenter target with default behavior. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies; the description's return-field list is useful but concerns outputs, not parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed cluster information') plus the exact contents (member hosts, HA/DRS config, resource capacity). The [READ] prefix and the named write-siblings (cluster_add_host, cluster_remove_host, cluster_configure) make the read-vs-mutate distinction unambiguous among the many cluster_* 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context: 'Use before cluster_add_host / cluster_remove_host' and 'to verify cluster_configure changes.' This is clear and actionable, but it names no when-not-to-use case or stated alternative (e.g., cluster_health_summary for health-focused checks), so it stops short of the full 5.

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