Scrape Prometheus-compatible cluster metrics

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds material context beyond them: two auth mechanisms, the required monitoring read permission, and the fact that results are filtered to only authorized clusters. It omits response format, size, and pagination/limit behavior.

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 purpose and followed by auth requirements; nothing is padded. The first sentence is a verbatim restatement of the title, which is the only wasted space.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say something about what a scrape returns (Prometheus exposition text vs. JSON, size/limits), and it does not. Combined with the undocumented optional namespace filter, the definition is adequate for a read-only endpoint but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent configuring a scrape.

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 schema technically documents the namespace name format via $defs, but the description says nothing about what the parameter does functionally - whether it scopes the scrape to a single namespace and what is returned when it is omitted (the parameter is optional). The semantic role of the sole parameter is left to inference.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Scrape Prometheus-compatible cluster metrics"), so an agent can tell this is a metrics-read endpoint. It does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling cluster_metrics_get, and the word "cluster" is not reconciled with the namespace scoping the schema exposes.

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?

It gives invocation prerequisites (bearer API token or signed-in browser cookie, plus monitoring read authorization), which is genuinely useful. It never says when to prefer this over cluster_metrics_get, health_get, or cluster_status_get, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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