export_cluster_yaml

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose safety and behavior. It explains parameter defaults (account_id env var, cloud defaults to aws) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or what happens on invalid input.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, then a clean Args section with clear parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and use case. Since an output schema exists, detailed return value documentation is not needed. However, it lacks information about error handling or edge cases.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds valuable meaning: example for cluster_id ('e.g. o-abc12345'), explains account_id fallback to environment variable, and lists valid cloud providers ('aws or azure'). This significantly compensates for the schema gap.

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 action ('Export') and the resource ('Ocean cluster configuration as YAML'), with a specific use case ('GitOps comparison or backup'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cluster which likely return JSON.

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 mentions specific use cases ('GitOps comparison or backup') but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage context well.

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