get_cluster_health

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior: the availability of pod/deployment details depends on the spoke context, which is not captured in annotations. This explains a conditional aspect of the output. No contradiction.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' block. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, achieving high conciseness with clear structure.

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 presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return structure. It covers the tool's scope, the meaning of 'cluster', and a critical prerequisite. It could be slightly more explicit about how the response differs when the spoke context is missing, but it does mention the distinction, so completeness is good.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It does: 'cluster: managed cluster name' and further relates it to the spoke context requirement for pod/deployment details. This gives the single parameter both a clear semantic and a behavioral implication 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 states a clear, specific purpose: 'Health summary for one cluster' and enumerates the key components (hub conditions, unhealthy pods, degraded deployments). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cluster_info, get_fleet_health, and get_addon_health, which target different scopes or resource types.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: pod/deployment detail requires a read-only spoke context (OCM_MCP_SPOKE_CONTEXTS), while hub conditions work without one. This provides clear context for when the tool can be used fully, but it does not name alternative tools for when not to use it.

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