Список групп нод кластера

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which are surprising for a list operation. The description explicitly states it returns a list, adding transparency about the operation's primary behavior. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, pagination, or safety, and the annotation conflict (readOnlyHint=false) is not clarified. The description adds some value but leaves ambiguity.

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 efficiently states the operation and output fields. No unnecessary words. Slightly brief but appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the key returned fields, which is valuable. The tool is low complexity with one parameter, and the description covers the essential scope. It does not discuss edge cases, empty results, or error conditions, but for a straightforward list operation it is largely 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?

The schema fully documents the single parameter cluster_id with a mandatory description, achieving 100% coverage. The description mentions 'в кластере' but adds no supplementary meaning beyond the schema. Since schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 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 specifies the verb 'Возвращает' (returns), the resource 'список всех групп нод в кластере' (list of all node groups in the cluster), and lists the output fields (ID, name, preset_id, node count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_k8s_node_group (single group) or list_k8s_node_group_nodes (nodes within a group).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with sibling listing tools. The clear name and output fields imply its use, but no contextual direction is given.

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