get_cluster_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the read-only nature implicitly via 'Show' and lists the returned aspects (history, conditions, updates), but it does not state side effects, permissions, or behavior on missing clusters.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then compactly lists the key output categories. 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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description covers the core function. However, the absence of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves meaningful gaps for the agent, especially regarding how to specify the cluster.

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 mention the 'cluster' parameter at all. It does not explain the expected format, default behavior, or whether the parameter is optional despite the schema default of an empty string.

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 ('Show') and resource ('ClusterVersion'), and it enumerates the exact content: history, conditions (Available/Progressing/Degraded), and available updates. It clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling cluster-info tools like get_cluster_info.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cluster_info or get_cluster_operator_details. The description only states what the tool shows, leaving the selection criteria entirely to the agent's inference.

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