Get cluster (summary)

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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those traits. The description adds some value by enumerating the summary fields returned. It does not mention error behavior or what happens if the cluster is absent, but for a read-only summary tool the annotations already cover the main safety profile.

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 sentence with a clear colon-separated list of returned fields. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant explanation. The title repetition is minor and does not detract.

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 low-complexity, read-only summary tool, the description is largely complete: it states what the summary contains, the schema documents all parameters, and annotations cover safety. No output schema exists, but the field list gives an agent a reasonable expectation of the return contents. The main gap is not positioning it against overlapping sibling tools, which is already penalized under usage guidelines.

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?

All three parameters have descriptive schema entries: name, context, and namespace, including default behavior for context and namespace. The tool description only reinforces that the target is a PerconaPGCluster and adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. This matches the high schema coverage baseline of 3.

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 (PerconaPGCluster) and the kind of result (a summary containing state, PostgreSQL size, PgBouncer, version, standby, and host). The title adds the action "Get", so an agent can tell this is a read operation. It does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like get_cluster_status, but the "summary" framing is reasonably distinct.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_cluster_status or get_connection_info. There are no exclusions, no alternative tool references, and no scenario-based advice. An agent must infer from the sibling names alone what differentiates this tool.

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