cluster_info

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds some context by specifying exactly which informational fields are returned, but it does not disclose behavior beyond that, such as error cases, load implications, or policy effect.

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 compact phrase that conveys all essential information without filler. It presents the primary attributes in a natural order and does not repeat anything already visible in 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 zero-parameter read-only info tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is largely complete. It could explicitly explain what the safety policy value means or how the agent should interpret it, but nothing critical prevents an agent from correctly selecting and invoking this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers all input requirements. The description compensates by describing the kind of information returned; there is no parameter ambiguity or gap for an agent to navigate.

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 the tool returns cluster identity information: name, version, distribution, and safety policy. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' but the resource and specific data fields make the purpose unmistakable and distinguishable from sibling tools like cluster_health.

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 tool is for retrieving basic cluster identity and safety-policy information, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives such as cluster_health or list_indices. Usage context is clear from the name and description, but not explicitly stated.

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