top_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds 'real-time' as a behavioral trait and clarifies scope ('all nodes'), but it does not mention read-only nature, side effects, authentication, or rate limits. However, 'Get' implies a non-mutating operation, and the command analogy suggests a safe read.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's core function, and the 'oc adm top nodes' analogy provides immediate recognition without extra verbosity.

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?

While the output schema exists, the description is incomplete for effective invocation because it omits any explanation of cluster_alias. The lack of annotations and zero schema coverage mean the description is the only source for parameter semantics, and it falls short. The tool is simple, but the missing parameter clarity leaves a significant gap.

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%, and the description does not mention the cluster_alias parameter at all. The agent receives no explanation of what cluster_alias does, whether it is required (though schema shows it is optional with default null), or how it affects the output. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Get') and resource ('real-time CPU and memory usage for all nodes'), which clearly states the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like top_pods (pods) and list_nodes (listing nodes) by focusing on node-level resource usage.

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 usage via the 'oc adm top nodes' analogy, providing a familiar context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_nodes or top_pods. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so guidance is only implied.

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