cluster_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it '获取集群设置' (gets cluster settings) without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, what format the settings are returned in, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 appropriately concise with three lines: purpose statement followed by two parameter explanations. There's no wasted text, and the structure is clear with purpose first. However, the formatting with extra whitespace could be slightly cleaner.

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's purpose (retrieving cluster settings), no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'cluster settings' specifically means, how the output is structured, or how this differs from other cluster tools. The parameter explanations help, but the overall context is insufficient for an agent to use this tool effectively among alternatives.

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 description provides Chinese explanations for both parameters: 'include_defaults: 是否包含默认设置' (whether to include default settings) and 'flat_settings: 是否扁平化显示' (whether to display flattened). With 0% schema description coverage, these explanations add significant value beyond what the schema provides (which only shows titles 'Include Defaults' and 'Flat Settings' in English). The description compensates well for the schema's 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 states '获取集群设置' (Get cluster settings), which provides a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('集群设置' - cluster settings). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cluster_health', 'cluster_state', or 'cluster_stats', all of which also retrieve cluster information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple cluster-related tools in the sibling list (cluster_health, cluster_state, cluster_stats, cluster_update_settings), there's no indication of what specific cluster settings this tool retrieves or when it's preferable to other cluster tools.

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