get_manifestwork

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that it reads conditions and per-resource feedback reported from the spoke, which clarifies the data source and behavior. It does not contradict annotations.

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, with a summary line, args list, and use-case sentence. It is well-structured but slightly redundant in mentioning status feedback twice.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics adequately. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description provides the necessary meaning for both parameters: cluster is the managed cluster name and name is the ManifestWork name. This fully compensates for the missing schema documentation, though it adds no extra constraints.

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 provides detailed ManifestWork status including top-level conditions and per-resource feedback. It distinguishes from sibling list/manipulation tools by focusing on a single ManifestWork's status.

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 says to use this tool to answer why a ManifestWork is not Applied/Available and to read status feedback such as replica counts. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for listing or creating, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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