Detect OpenShift Cluster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions read-only returns but lacks explicit statements about destructiveness, authentication needs, or side effects. The return structure is partially described but could be more precise.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose: one for the return values, one for the scope (works on any cluster).

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 no output schema, the description partially explains the output (version, URL, API groups) but does not specify the return format, error behavior (e.g., when not OpenShift), or whether results are returned as a JSON object. Still mostly complete for a simple detection 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?

No parameters exist, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 detects if the cluster is OpenShift and specifies the returned information (OCP version, console URL, registered API groups). It distinguishes from sibling detect tools (e.g., argocd_detect) by focusing on OpenShift detection.

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 for checking OpenShift presence, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternative detect tools or when not to use. Context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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