Каталог дополнений кластера

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

This is an annotation contradiction: the description says 'returns' (a read operation), but annotations set readOnlyHint=false, suggesting the tool may not be read-only. The description also doesn't disclose side effects or safety characteristics, and the contradictory annotation undermines trust.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main verb ('Возвращает') and focuses on the return content. No filler or repetition.

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 simple listing tool with one parameter, the description covers what it returns. However, it lacks context about cluster existence prerequisites, error behavior, or any distinction from sibling tools. The annotation contradiction also reduces overall completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the only parameter (cluster_id) is described as 'MANDATORY FIELD - Cluster ID,' which adds no semantic meaning beyond the name. The tool description doesn't elaborate on the cluster_id parameter, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 add-ons available for installation, listing specific attributes (type, version, dependencies, YAML template). It distinguishes from siblings like list_k8s_addons by specifying 'available for installation,' though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit usage guidance or alternatives are provided. The phrase 'available for installation' implies use before installing an add-on, but it doesn't mention when not to use it or point to sibling tools like list_k8s_addons or install_k8s_addon.

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