Get Cluster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond that: the auth requirement (user access token plus organization membership), the guarantee that role ARNs and secrets are never returned, and the null semantics for older clusters lacking saved identity. It does not cover error behavior, such as what happens when the cluster ID is unknown or outside the organization.

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?

Bold section headers front-load purpose, returns, auth, and usage in a scannable order with no filler sentences. The Returns paragraph is dense and long, but each clause describes a distinct field the caller must interpret.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly, including the nested s3_storage data/backups structure and the empty-path-means-bucket-root convention. Auth preconditions and the single-cluster scope are both stated, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling.

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 100%, with both parameters documented in-schema (clusterId sourced from list-clusters, organization as the containing scope). The description adds no further syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Get one RawTree dedicated cluster and its current lifecycle status") and implicitly contrasts with the bulk listing operation. An agent can distinguish it from list-clusters and update-cluster 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?

A dedicated "When to use" block gives three concrete triggering conditions, including the post-pause/resume status check. The last bullet routes the agent away from the full-list alternative, though it describes that sibling by behavior rather than naming list-clusters.

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