get_cluster

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: it returns specific fields and clarifies that the cluster name must be 'as the hub knows it'. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 compact and well-structured with distinct summary, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler or technical jargon.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, this description covers the operation, parameter semantics, and returned fields. It lacks explicit comparisons to sibling tools, but the low complexity and rich annotations make it sufficiently complete.

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 only provides a title 'Cluster' with no description, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the parameter as 'managed cluster name as the hub knows it' and directing users to list_clusters for valid names, adding critical meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Full view of one ManagedCluster', clearly stating the verb and singular resource. It enumerates the returned data (acceptance, taints, hub conditions, Kubernetes version, capacity, ClusterClaims), distinguishing it from siblings like list_clusters and get_cluster_info.

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?

It tells users to get the cluster name from list_clusters, providing a useful pointer for the required argument. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative get_* tools or provide exclusion criteria, so usage guidance is mostly implied.

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