get-container-clusters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation and lists the returned fields, but it does not explain behavior around filtering, max_results, pagination, or potential prerequisites/errors. This is acceptable for a simple getter but not rich.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently summarizes the return fields.

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 simple two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the main output fields. It is slightly incomplete in terms of explicit usage guidance and behavioral caveats, but the schema fills in the parameter details.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to because both parameters are already documented with clear descriptions.

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 (Get), a specific resource (container clusters), and the scope (registered in the PCE). It further distinguishes itself from workload-level sibling tools by naming cluster-specific output fields such as CLAS mode, kubelink version, and node count.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: querying container clusters registered in the PCE and viewing their status/version details. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the scope is clear enough for a simple list/get tool.

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