k8s_create_kubernetes_cluster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the action itself: no mention of side effects, potential costs, asynchronous behavior, required permissions, or idempotency. The reference to 'ctx' for resource change notifications is a technical detail but not a behavioral disclosure. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a clear list of arguments with brief explanations, and a returns line. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded purpose makes it easy to scan. The structure is logical and not redundant.

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 complexity of creating a Kubernetes cluster, the description covers all required and optional parameters, explains the nested node_pools structure, and points to a helper tool for version selection. It does not mention if the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, or prerequisites like region availability, but these are often not expected in tool descriptions. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has no descriptions for properties (coverage 0%), but the description compensates thoroughly. It explains each parameter: label, region (with example), version (with hint to get_kubernetes_versions), node_pools with detailed subfields, enable_firewall, ha_controlplanes, and even an extra ctx parameter not in the schema. It adds crucial context like minimum and recommended values for node_quantity, making the tool callable correctly.

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: 'Create a new Kubernetes cluster.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like k8s_update_kubernetes_cluster, k8s_delete_kubernetes_cluster, and k8s_list_kubernetes_clusters. The scope is unambiguous and the purpose is immediately clear.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (creating a new cluster) and even provides a pointer to a related tool for version selection ('use get_kubernetes_versions for available options'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative operations like update or delete, though this is largely implied by the verb 'create'. The parameter guidance (e.g., node_quantity recommended 3+) also aids correct usage.

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