get_cluster

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape ('JSON with cluster metadata and its constituent server groups'), which is not captured in any structured field.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and identifiers before the use case and return note. There is minor redundancy in mentioning 'server groups' both as an inspection target and as returned content, but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned JSON contents, and all three parameters are fully documented. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation from list_clusters, but nothing needed to invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents application, account, and cluster_name; the baseline is 3. The description restates 'by account and cluster name' but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get details for a specific cluster in a Spinnaker application') and names the three required identifiers, making the tool's scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling list_clusters, so the singular-vs-list distinction is only implied.

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?

'Use this to inspect server groups, load balancers, and instance counts within a cluster' gives an implied use case. However, it never states when NOT to use it or directs the agent to alternatives such as list_clusters or get_target_server_group, leaving routing to inference.

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