get_cluster_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' information (implying a read operation) but doesn't clarify what 'detailed information' includes, whether it requires specific permissions, if there are rate limits, or what the response format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably returns complex cluster data.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get detailed information') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, and the likely complexity of Kubernetes cluster details, the description is insufficient. It doesn't hint at what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., configuration, status, resources), leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output and behavioral context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'cluster_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as where to find cluster IDs or format examples, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a specific Kubernetes cluster managed by RAD Security'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_clusters' or 'get_k8s_resource_details', which could provide similar cluster-related information.

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. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used after 'list_clusters' to get more details for a specific cluster ID, or how it differs from 'get_k8s_resource_details' which might overlap in functionality.

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