register_cluster

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals useful traits: the first cluster automatically becomes default, and 'set_default=True' changes default status for subsequent registrations. However, it omits important details such as whether credentials are stored, what happens if the alias already exists, or whether connectivity is verified. It adds some context but not enough for full behavioral transparency.

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 and well-structured: a single sentence states the core purpose, followed by two brief, informative sentences about default behavior and optional parameters. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain how required parameters like 'alias', 'api_url', 'username', and 'password' should be used, nor does it describe potential side effects, error conditions, or preconditions (e.g., network access, valid credentials). The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of operational guidance.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'oauth_url' (when to provide) and 'set_default' (purpose), but provides no additional explanation for the required parameters: 'alias', 'api_url', 'username', and 'password'. Since 5 of 7 parameters remain undocumented, the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 starts with 'Register an OpenShift cluster by acquiring an OAuth token,' which uses a specific verb ('Register'), identifies the resource ('OpenShift cluster'), and differentiates from sibling tools like 'register_standard_clusters' by specifying the mechanism. This clearly states the tool's purpose.

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 some usage context: it explains when to provide 'oauth_url' and when to set 'set_default=True', and notes the first registered cluster becomes default. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like 'register_standard_clusters' or state situations where this tool should not be used. Usage is implied but not fully explicit.

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