get_cluster_info

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reads ManagedClusterInfo on the hub, needs no spoke access, and reports clearly if the add-on is missing. Even though readOnlyHint=true is already given, the source-of-truth detail and error behavior enrich transparency.

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: a lead sentence with outcomes, then an Args block, then context. No redundant sentences; every line adds information about scope, requirements, or behavior.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and that an output schema exists, the description is complete. It covers prerequisites (add-on), scope (any spoke, hub-read), and error behavior, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to guess.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates fully by documenting the sole parameter: 'cluster: managed cluster name.' This adds clear meaning that the input schema lacks, making the parameter unambiguous.

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's purpose with specific content: 'Extended inventory for one cluster from the hub: OpenShift version, nodes, console URL.' It uses a specific resource and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_cluster by emphasizing 'extended' inventory and the hub-source.

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 provides clear usage context: it reads from the hub, works for any spoke (external OpenShift, HCP, cloud), and requires the ACM/MCE add-on. It explains when the tool can be used but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 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.