get_monitoring_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but the verb 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation and identifies the exact target. It does not mention permissions or failure modes, but for a simple read with an output schema this is adequate.

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?

One sentence that immediately states the verb and object with no filler. Every word earns its place and the core information is front-loaded.

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 tool is simple, but the only parameter is left completely unexplained and there is no comparison to the sibling get_configmap. An agent has insufficient information to invoke it correctly without guessing the meaning of the cluster parameter.

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?

The sole parameter 'cluster' is completely undocumented in both schema and description (0% schema coverage). The description adds no meaning about what cluster values are valid, how the default is used, or whether cluster is required.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read'), exact resource ('cluster-monitoring-config ConfigMap'), and namespace ('openshift-monitoring'). The named resource clearly distinguishes it from the generic sibling get_configmap.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of how this differs from get_configmap. The description is purely declarative with no usage context.

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