fetch_cluster_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that results come with freshness annotations and that the operation is a read ('Get'), but says nothing about behavior on an unknown/invalid label, permission requirements, or result size limits. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and each subsequent sentence adding a distinct, non-redundant instruction (sequencing, parameter sourcing). No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, sequencing, and parameter provenance — everything an agent needs to 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% for the single 'label' parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does by telling the agent exactly where the value comes from ('exactly as returned by recall_memory_tool'). It stops short of format/case rules, but adds real meaning beyond the bare string schema.

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 (get/fetch) and resource (all facts stored in a named memory cluster), and implicitly contrasts with recall_memory_tool by positioning itself as the 'full content' retrieval step. An agent can distinguish it from the many search/list siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says to use it after recall_memory_tool to expand a specific topic, naming the sibling and the sequencing condition. It lacks an explicit 'when-not' (e.g., what to do if you don't have a label), but the usage context is clear rather than inferred.

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