get_node_pool_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'optional metrics view' but does not clarify how to enable it (no parameter in schema). It lacks disclosure of side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or return format. The mention of 'optional' without corresponding schema is misleading.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource. No wasted words. Efficiently conveys core functionality.

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?

Despite zero annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not specify return fields, pagination, or error conditions. For a detail-retrieval tool, more context on what 'detailed' includes and how to get metrics would be expected.

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 coverage is 100%; both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, merely restating 'optional metrics view' which does not map to any parameter. 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 uses a clear verb ('returns') and specifies the resource ('detailed node, spot/preemptible, and optional metrics view for a specific node pool'). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'list_node_pools' which likely lists pools without details.

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 implies use for getting detailed info about a specific pool, but does not provide explicit when, when-not, or alternative tool guidance. It is clear in context but lacks differentiation cues from similar tools like 'describe_node' or 'get_node_pressure'.

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