get_openshift_cluster_operator_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool analyzes ('operator conditions, versions, and dependencies') and outlines the return structure, which helps understand its read-only nature and output format. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, or whether it performs active checks versus querying cached data.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, adds analytical scope, then details parameters and returns in labeled sections. While efficient, the 'Analyzes operator conditions, versions, and dependencies.' sentence could be integrated more smoothly with the opening statement.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return structure. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, though it could benefit from more behavioral context about how the check is performed.

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 excellent parameter semantics beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters with clear purposes and default values (e.g., 'filter_degraded: Only show operators with issues'). This adds significant value over the bare schema properties.

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's purpose: 'Check health and status of OpenShift cluster operators for platform functionality.' This specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('OpenShift cluster operators'), and scope ('platform functionality'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_machine_config_pool_status' or 'check_cluster_certificate_health' which also check cluster health aspects.

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. While it mentions analyzing 'operator conditions, versions, and dependencies,' it doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over other cluster health tools in the sibling list, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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