get_cluster_operators

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 useful behavior: the output column set and the degraded-first ordering. However, it does not mention the meaning of the optional cluster parameter, whether the operation is cluster-scoped, or any permission expectations.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs in scope, output columns, and ordering. There is no filler or redundant content; every part earns its place.

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 is adequate for a simple read-only list tool, and the output schema can cover return-value details. However, it leaves the cluster parameter semantically unexplained and provides no usage differentiation from closely related operator tools, so it is complete enough only with some gaps.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'cluster' parameter at all. The parameter name and default are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no meaning about whether it is required, what values it accepts, or what an empty default signifies.

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 specific verb and resource ('List all ClusterOperators') and adds concrete output details (Available/Progressing/Degraded/Version columns) plus a distinguishing behavior (degraded operators first). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_cluster_operator_details and get_cluster_version.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cluster_operator_details or get_operator_status. The description implies a status-overview use case, but it does not state exclusions or name better-suited siblings.

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