get_cluster_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Get' but does not explicitly state it is read-only, lacks side effects, or require any permissions. It also does not disclose behavior on missing clusters or error scenarios. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key result areas.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what the tool returns ('nodes, workloads, and health'). However, it does not specify the structure of the returned information or set expectations for errors, which prevents a higher score.

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 schema covers the only parameter 'cluster_id' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about the parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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' with a clear resource 'detailed status of a cluster' and lists the content areas ('nodes, workloads, and health'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_clusters (which lists clusters) and get_node_info (which targets a single node).

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 word 'detailed' implies this should be used when a more in-depth view than list_clusters is needed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any mention of exclusions. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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