get_cluster_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action ('list') without clarifying read-only nature, authentication requirements, or potential performance impact, which is inadequate for a tool that accesses cluster resources.

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 very concise with only two sentences plus the Args list. It front-loads the core purpose, though the structure could be improved by separating the filtering instructions more clearly.

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 simple single-parameter input and existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects. However, it lacks any context about output format, pagination, or error handling, which would be helpful.

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?

The description adds value beyond the schema by enumerating the allowed filter values ('vm', 'storage', 'node', 'sdn', 'pool') and clarifying that empty returns all. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states 'List all resources across the cluster' and lists specific types (VMs, containers, storage, nodes), which is a distinct purpose compared to sibling tools like list_vms or list_containers that focus on specific resource types.

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 use for an overview of all cluster resources but does not explicitly distinguish from the many specific list tools available as siblings, nor does it provide guidance on when not to use it.

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