get-container-workload-profiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add context by explaining what the profiles represent and how they control pod management. However, it does not disclose read-only expectations, filtering interactions, pagination, or what happens when no cluster_href is provided (that detail is only in the schema).

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by a concise explanation of domain meaning. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant wording or filler.

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 getter with three optional filters and no output schema, the description plus schema cover most invocation needs. However, the description alone does not mention how to discover the cluster_href (sibling get-container-clusters), nor what a typical response contains. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer these 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 adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; the phrase 'for a container cluster' loosely aligns with cluster_href but doesn't explain filter semantics or combinations. The schema already handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Get Container Workload Profiles for a container cluster.' It also adds a useful conceptual explanation of what these profiles are (mapping K8s namespaces to Illumio labels and enforcement modes). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get-container-clusters or get-kubernetes-workloads, hence no 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-container-clusters, get-kubernetes-workloads, or update-container-workload-profile. The description implies a use case (inspecting profiles for a cluster) but never states conditions, exclusions, or preferred alternatives. The only usage hint (cluster_href behavior when omitted) lives in the schema, not the description.

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