get_target_server_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns JSON with matched server group details, but discloses nothing else behavioral (no note on ambiguity resolution when multiple candidates match).

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 purpose, followed by usage and the return format. Tight with no filler, though the strategy enumeration slightly duplicates the schema's target description.

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 read-only lookup with all parameters documented and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and a brief return note. It is nearly complete, only missing clarification of ambiguous-match behavior when several groups satisfy the target strategy.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, making the 3 baseline appropriate. The description's strategy examples are helpful, but it introduces a mismatch: it lists 'fail' as a target while the schema documents 'ancestor', which could confuse an agent on valid values.

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 (Get) and resource (a specific server group in a Spinnaker cluster), plus the distinguishing mechanism: a target selection strategy rather than a name. This separates it from list_server_groups, but it does not name that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the contrast.

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?

Provides a clear when-to-use condition: 'when you need the most recently deployed or a specific server group without knowing its exact name.' It gives no explicit when-not or named alternative, though the 'without knowing its exact name' framing implicitly routes named lookups elsewhere.

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