Установленные дополнения кластера

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

The description discloses the returned data structure (ID, type, version, status), which is useful since no output schema exists. However, annotations include readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, which might imply side effects; the description does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has any side effects. No direct contradiction, but the safety profile is not fully clarified.

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 sentence that immediately starts with the action verb and states the resource and return fields. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description is adequately complete: it states the purpose, scope, and return fields. Since no output schema exists, the mention of returned fields helps fill the gap. It does not discuss pagination or error cases, but those are less critical for this simple operation.

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 fully documents the single parameter cluster_id with the description 'ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНОЕ ПОЛЕ - ID кластера'. The tool description adds only the phrase 'в кластере', which does not meaningfully enhance the schema-provided meaning. Baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 список') with a clear resource ('установленных в кластере дополнений') and lists the returned fields (ID, type, version, status). This fully distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_k8s_addon_configs, install_k8s_addon, and update_k8s_addon.

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 states when to use: to retrieve the list of installed cluster add-ons. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous and needs no exclusions for a simple list operation.

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