Ресурсы Kubernetes-кластера

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

With readOnlyHint=false, annotations do not clearly signal safety, but the description explicitly says 'returns' and enumerates the metrics, providing useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not describe response format or units, but the list of returned metrics is helpful.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by the list of returned metrics. No wasted words and easily parseable.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately covers the main return payload by listing the metric categories. It lacks specifics like units or response fields, but for a resources-getter, it is reasonably complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with only one parameter (cluster_id) described as required and labeled 'ID кластера'. The description adds no additional semantics about the parameter beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns aggregated Kubernetes cluster resource metrics, listing specific categories (nodes, CPU, memory, pods with requested/allocatable/capacity/used). This distinguishes it from sibling get_k8s_cluster (likely cluster metadata) and get_k8s_node_group (per-node resources).

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 usage when you need cluster resource summary, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like get_k8s_cluster or list_k8s_cluster_nodes. It lacks exclusions or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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