get_oke_cluster

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get detailed information'), which is consistent with typical 'get' tools, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's idempotent. It adds value by detailing the return content, but lacks operational context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and detailed return information. However, it lacks output schema, so the return details are helpful but informal, and behavioral aspects like error handling are omitted, leaving minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly defines the single parameter 'cluster_id' as 'OCID of the cluster', adding crucial semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Cluster Id' title. This clarifies the format and purpose of the parameter, effectively compensating for the low 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get detailed information') and target resource ('about a specific OKE cluster'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_oke_clusters' (which lists multiple clusters) and 'get_oke_cluster_kubeconfig' (which retrieves a specific configuration file). The purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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 implicitly suggests usage when detailed information about a specific cluster is needed, as opposed to listing clusters or getting other cluster-related data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'list_oke_clusters' for overviews, leaving some room for improvement in explicit guidance.

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