cluster_monitor_data

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, so the description doesn't need to restate that. 'Refresh' is a read-style operation consistent with the annotation, and adding 'including CPU history' gives a useful hint about content. It still omits what exactly is refreshed, whether it hits the network, or what the call returns.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the key scope detail front-loaded. It is well-sized, though its brevity edges toward under-specification given the unexplained parameter rather than pure conciseness.

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 tool with no output schema and an undocumented optional parameter, the description does too little. It neither explains include_internal nor describes the shape of the returned data beyond the passing mention of CPU history.

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 0%, and the sole parameter include_internal is never mentioned in the description. With the schema silent and the description silent, an agent has no idea what toggling include_internal does, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Refresh) and resource (data for the Cluster Monitor app), plus a concrete scope detail (CPU history). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling cluster_monitor tool or clarifies its relationship to it, so an agent must infer the division of labor.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative pointer. The phrase 'for the Cluster Monitor app' hints at context but gives no condition telling an agent when to call this versus cluster_monitor or pipeline_monitor_data.

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