AKS cluster overview

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying what aspects are summarized and by disclosing that it reports reachability for azure_aks_workloads and azure_aks_pod_logs. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.

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 sentences, both of which earn their place. The first is dense but organized and front-loaded with the primary purpose; the second adds a unique capability that is important for tool selection among siblings.

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 read-only overview tool with one well-documented parameter and strong annotations, the description is complete. It lists the categories of information returned and includes the cross-tool reachability detail, so an agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly.

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 has 100% coverage for the single clusterId parameter, including its meaning as a Resource ID. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond mentioning that the summary comes from Azure Resource Manager, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 summarizes an AKS cluster and enumerates the exact information it covers: power and provisioning state, Kubernetes version and upgrades, node pools, networking, identity, and add-ons. This distinguishes it from generic get_resource tools and from sibling tools like azure_aks_workloads and azure_aks_pod_logs.

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 makes the tool's scope evident: use it for a high-level overview of an AKS cluster and to check whether related workload/log tools can reach that cluster. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tool list.

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