prepare_cluster_installation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-starting behavior and return type, but does not mention potential side effects, file writes, or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a preparation 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?

The description is succinct, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential information about parameters and returns. No wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, key parameters, and return value. It lacks notes on prerequisites or integration with sibling tools, but is sufficient for a command-preparation task.

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?

Even though the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description clearly explains each parameter's meaning and includes default values and allowed log levels, effectively compensating for the schema gap.

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 tool 'prepares' a cluster installation command and explicitly distinguishes it from actually starting the installation, which sets it apart from sibling execution/status tools.

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?

The description explains that the tool only provides the command and does not start the installation, giving clear context and a when-not. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or state explicit prerequisites.

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