get_scc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of signaling behavior. 'Get' reasonably indicates a read-only operation, and the listed fields clarify what is retrieved. However, it does not mention permission requirements, behavior when the SCC does not exist, or any cluster-related caveats.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the operation and enumerates the key returned fields. Every word contributes value, with no repetition of the tool name or schema.

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?

For a two-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return content. It falls short on parameter semantics and explicit alternative routing, but these are modest gaps given the simple read-only nature of the tool.

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 should compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention the 'name' identifier or the 'cluster' parameter at all, leaving the optional cluster field and its default behavior undocumented.

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-resource pair ('Get full SCC detail') and enumerates the exact fields returned (volumes, capabilities, allowedCapabilities, users, groups). It clearly distinguishes this getter from list_sccs and create_scc siblings.

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 this is the tool to use when full detail on a specific SCC is needed, as opposed to enumerating SCCs with list_sccs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a retrieval tool.

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