skypilot_cluster_status

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by spelling out the three refresh modes and their semantics (NONE = no refresh, AUTO = only autostop/spot clusters, FORCE = all), which tells the agent when the call may reach out to providers. It stops short of noting cost/latency of FORCE or any permission implications of all_users.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the optional details. The field enumeration in sentence two is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it costs little.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on scoping and refresh behavior. The main gap is that all_users is never explained, which matters in a multi-user cluster system, but otherwise the agent has enough to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does well for refresh (all three values defined, default stated, enum absent from the schema) and cluster_names (empty means all), but the all_users parameter is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving one of three parameters semantically opaque.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get the status of SkyPilot clusters") and enumerates the returned fields, which clearly separates it from mutation siblings like skypilot_cluster_stop/start/down. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent read tools such as skypilot_status_kubernetes, skypilot_pool_status, or skypilot_cluster_endpoints.

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 default-scope rule ("If no cluster_names provided, returns all clusters") gives implicit usage guidance for the no-argument case. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no direction toward alternatives when a different flavor of cluster/pool/kubernetes status is what the agent actually wants.

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