cluster_get

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only implies a read operation ('get details') without confirming safety, required permissions, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficient, though it could be expanded slightly to improve completeness without losing 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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context, which would improve completeness given the large set of sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not hinder understanding.

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 'Get details of a specific cluster' clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'details of a specific cluster', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cluster_get_all (list all) and cluster_create/delete/update (mutations).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that cluster_get_all should be used for listing clusters, or that this tool requires a clustername. The description is too brief to aid in tool selection.

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