get_cluster_resource_utilisation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states it 'returns' data, but does not disclose if it aggregates, any authorization needs, performance implications, or side effects. This is insufficient for a resource-intensive monitoring tool.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, extremely concise with no fluff. It is efficiently structured, though it sacrifices behavioral detail for brevity. On conciseness alone, it's well-optimized.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain the return format (e.g., per-node vs aggregate, units) and any important context (e.g., real-time vs historical). It fails to do so, leaving the agent with incomplete information for a cluster-wide utilization tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for its single parameter (cluster) with a clear description including default value. The tool description does not add further semantics, but baseline is 3 because the schema already documents the parameter 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 clearly states the tool returns CPU and Memory usage vs capacity across all nodes, using specific verbs and resource names. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_nodes or get_cluster_info by focusing on resource utilization.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_node_pressure or describe_node. The description does not mention when not to use it or what prerequisites exist, leaving the agent without decision context.

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