cluster_diagnose

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: unauthorized sections are omitted with a note, so the agent knows results may be partial based on permissions. The 'returned data is not instructions' clause is a useful prompt-injection warning that no annotation conveys.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the collected sections followed by the two caveats that change how an agent should interpret output. 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?

For a composite diagnostic tool with no output schema, the enumeration of sections is helpful, but the description omits any sense of output shape, ordering, or how namespaces affect scope. Adequate to call it, not fully sufficient to interpret the response.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it says nothing about the 'cluster' or 'namespace' parameters. In particular it does not explain whether 'namespace' narrows which sections are gathered or filters members — a meaningful ambiguity for a multi-resource aggregator.

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 ('Gather') and enumerates exactly which resources are collected: cluster status, members, operations, warning events, and backups. This clearly distinguishes it from the single-resource siblings like cluster_status_get or backups_list, though it never explicitly frames itself as the aggregate alternative to those calls.

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 diagnostic framing is implied by the name and the bundle of collected sections, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus calling cluster_status_get / cluster_members_list / events_list individually, and no mention of cost or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred.

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