Cluster info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific system table source and the conceptual content returned, but it does not add broader behavioral context such as authentication requirements, output shape, or edge cases. This is acceptable with strong annotations but not exceptional.

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 sentence that front-loads the core concept and avoids filler. Every clause contributes meaning, naming the source and the key aspects of the returned topology.

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 metadata inspection tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what information is available and from where, and the annotations cover the operational safety profile.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning, and it does not attempt to invent any.

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 identifies the resource: cluster topology sourced from system.clusters, with shards, replicas, and hosts as the relevant components. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_tables or server_metrics, but lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'returns', so it stops short of a 5.

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 should be used when cluster topology from system.clusters is needed, and the lack of parameters makes prerequisites moot. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions, leaving usage partly to inference.

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