Информация о группе нод

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

The description states the operation 'Возвращает' (returns) information, implying a read-only action, but the annotation declares readOnlyHint=false, contradicting the described behavior. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent about potential side effects. Flagging as an annotation contradiction.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without irrelevant details or redundancy. It effectively communicates the core functionality.

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 two required parameters and a straightforward return of detailed info. No output schema exists, so the description's failure to detail the response structure is acceptable for a get operation. However, the annotation contradiction (readOnlyHint=false) creates uncertainty about the operation's actual side effects, making the overall context incomplete for an agent.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both required parameters (cluster_id and group_id) with clear Russian labels and required flags. The description adds only the generic phrase 'по её ID', which adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 'Возвращает' (returns) with a clear resource 'информацию о группе нод кластера' and identifier 'по её ID', making it distinct from siblings like list_k8s_node_groups or get_k8s_cluster.

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 clearly indicates the tool provides detailed information for a specific node group given a cluster and group ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear. A minor gap is the lack of mention of when to prefer this over list_k8s_node_groups.

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