gh_cluster_expand

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false signals that the tool modifies the document, and the description implies this without detail. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the cluster itself is deleted or kept) or any other behavioral characteristics beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the purpose in a clear and efficient manner.

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?

The description is minimally sufficient for a simple tool with one parameter, but it does not clarify what 'expand' entails (e.g., whether the cluster is replaced by its components, how the output is structured). The existence of an output schema mitigates this slightly, but the description alone is incomplete.

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 schema provides no description for the only parameter (cluster_id), and the tool description does not mention it at all. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's role entirely implicit.

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 ('expand') and the object ('a cluster'), making the purpose understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like gh_cluster_create, but the verb 'expand' is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool over alternatives, such as gh_cluster_create or gh_component_list. It lacks any context about the appropriate scenario for expanding a cluster.

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