List Kubernetes Nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one genuine trait (results are ranked by container CPU/memory), but never states that this is a read-only listing, how time windows/limits behave by default, or what happens when cluster is omitted. That is thin for a 10-parameter tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the most important fact (what the list contains and how it is ordered) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably over-terse for a tool with ten 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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits too much: default time-range behavior, the limit cap, the connection parameter, and any read-only assurance. An agent has to open the schema and infer the rest.

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 90%, so the schema already documents the time-window, limit, connection, and cluster parameters. The description's cluster guidance ('from dynatrace_list_clusters') merely restates what the schema's cluster property already says ('Discover with dynatrace_list_clusters; do not assume a cluster'). Baseline 3 applies since the description adds nothing beyond the structured field.

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 states a specific resource (Kubernetes nodes) and adds a distinctive detail: results are ranked by container CPU/memory on that node. Combined with the title, an agent can tell this apart from list_pods/list_namespaces/list_clusters. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling it replaces or when it is preferred.

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?

'Pass cluster from dynatrace_list_clusters' establishes a concrete prerequisite/dependency chain, which is useful. However it gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to siblings like dynatrace_list_pods or dynatrace_pod_utilization, leaving usage largely implied.

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