get_cluster_scale

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It clearly states 'Read-only' and lists what information is retrieved (worker node pools, add-ons). While it could detail the return format, it sufficiently discloses the operation's nature.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the core purpose, then providing usage context and read-only clarification. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameter sourcing, and read-only nature. It could mention the specific add-ons or response structure, but it's sufficient for agent decision-making.

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% with a single parameter 'service_id'. The description adds that it comes from 'list_services', but the schema already provides a similar description. No additional parameter meaning beyond the schema is offered.

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 the tool 'gets the current scale of a managed Kubernetes cluster', specifying resources like worker node pools and add-ons. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'set_cluster_scale' by emphasizing read-only nature.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('how big is my cluster right now?', 'before planning a resize') and clarifies that changing scale is not exposed as an MCP tool, implying use of 'set_cluster_scale' sibling. It also guides on obtaining the required 'service_id' from 'list_services'.

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