get_target_server_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral nuance: it selects based on a 'selection strategy', which implies dynamic/rules-based resolution beyond a simple get-by-ID. This additional context justifies a score above 3.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action and key qualifier ('by selection strategy'). No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.

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 the tool has no output schema and 6 required parameters, the description is sufficient for a read-only, idempotent operation. It does not explain the return format, but for a simple data retrieval tool, the behavioral context (selection strategy) covers the key complexity. An explicit note about return structure would perfect it.

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%, with each parameter having clear descriptions in the schema itself. The description does not add any extra semantics beyond the schema. Per guidelines, high coverage baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate further.

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 precisely states the tool retrieves a target server group from a Spinnaker cluster based on a selection strategy. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_server_groups' (which lists all) and 'get_cluster' (getting cluster info), while using specific verbs and resources.

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 implies usage for cases where a specific server group must be selected by strategy (e.g., newest, largest). It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for listing all server groups), but the clarity of the action and sibling names provide adequate context. No alternative tool is named, which would earn a 5.

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