vcluster_describe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that information is returned as serialized JSON on success or an error object on failure, and details what info is included (status, resources, configuration). While not explicitly saying it is read-only, the verb 'describe' implies no mutation, and the return/error behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then a slight elaboration, followed by a structured Args list and Returns note. It is somewhat verbose, but every sentence adds value (what info is retrieved, parameter defaults, failure behavior). It is appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters.

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 describe tool with an output schema available (as indicated by context signals), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter defaults, and error behavior. It does not explain prerequisites like cluster access, but for this simple read operation the coverage is adequate and complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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's Args section fully compensates: it explains the name parameter, states namespace is optional with a default to the vcluster name, and clarifies kubeconfig_path falls back to the environment default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types and titles.

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 tool's function: 'Describe a specific vcluster in detail.' It specifies the resource (vcluster), the granularity (specific, not listing all), and the kind of information (status, resources, configuration). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vcluster_list and vcluster_create.

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 indicates when to use it: when you need detailed information about a single vcluster. It mentions optional namespace behavior and kubeconfig defaults, which helps in practical usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like vcluster_list for listing all clusters.

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