get_operator_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only mentions the data returned (phase, conditions, owned CRDs) without mentioning side effects, required permissions, error cases, or any destructive potential. The description lacks transparency about mutation or safety.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding context about namespace behavior. It could be slightly more efficient, but overall it is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 has an output schema, which reduces the need to describe return values. However, the description omits prerequisites (e.g., cluster context required) and potential error conditions. Given the complexity of operator status, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the namespace parameter's behavior when empty, but does not clarify the 'cluster' parameter or the 'name' parameter beyond its basic role. Two out of three parameters lack meaningful semantic guidance beyond their names.

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 that the tool retrieves ClusterServiceVersion status including phase, conditions, and owned CRDs. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_installed_operators or get_cluster_operator_details.

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 provides guidance for the namespace parameter (empty means all namespaces), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios where it should not be used.

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