vcluster_certs_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only, reports certificate and expiry information, and returns an error object on failure. It also explains why the check matters in a real failure scenario, adding useful behavioral context beyond the bare function name.

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 with a purpose statement, diagnostic context, parameter explanations, and return behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded before the details.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with three parameters, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters behave, and what to expect on success or failure. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe exact return fields.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: name identifies the vcluster, namespace defaults to the vcluster name, and kubeconfig_path defaults to the environment kubeconfig. This adds meaning the raw schema does not provide.

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 a specific verb and resource: checking the control-plane certificates of a vcluster and reporting current certificates with expiry dates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vcluster_list, vcluster_describe, and vcluster_kubeconfig, which serve different purposes.

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 gives a clear when-to-use condition: check when a vcluster is unreachable but otherwise appears healthy, since expired certificates often cause opaque connection failures. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the diagnostic context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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