get_cluster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is clear. Description adds no behavioral details beyond that, such as API rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'details' entails. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads purpose. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient and wastes no words.

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?

Given that the tool has no output schema, some detail on what 'details' include (e.g., metadata, statistics, cluster configuration) would help. The description is minimally complete for a simple get operation but lacks guidance on the nature of the returned data.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description does not add further meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so score is baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states it gets details for a specific cluster in a Spinnaker application, combining verb and resource. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like get_target_server_group or list_clusters, which could overlap in purpose.

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?

No explicit when or when-not to use is provided. Sibling tools exist for related operations (e.g., list_clusters for listing all clusters, get_target_server_group for specific server groups), but no guidance is given on choosing this over alternatives.

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