get_cluster_costs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses defaults, supported values (group_by only namespace), and limit behavior (set to 0 for all). It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but for a read-only cost tool, the transparency is strong.

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 succinct, starting with a clear purpose line, followed by a structured parameter list. Each parameter explanation is brief yet complete. No redundant information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not cover return values. It thoroughly documents inputs and includes important details like cloud defaults and limit behavior. However, it lacks a brief note on when to use this over other cost-related tools.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter with examples, defaults, and constraints (e.g., ISO 8601 format for times, group_by limited to namespace, account_id env var fallback). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Get aggregated cost breakdown for an Ocean cluster (AWS or Azure).' This specifies the action (get), the resource (cost breakdown), and the scope (Ocean cluster, AWS/Azure). It distinguishes from siblings like get_cluster, get_cluster_health, and get_cost_trending.

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 usage for cluster-specific cost breakdown but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_cost_trending or get_savings_summary. The context of sibling tools suggests differentiation, but no guidelines on when to use this over others.

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