get_cluster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the 'current instance' scoping constraint, which is useful, but it does not disclose return format, possible errors, or any additional behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already establish.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes to meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is arguably minimal, but for a no-parameter read-only tool this brevity is appropriate.

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?

The tool is simple: no parameters, no nested objects, no output schema, and strong safety annotations. The description sufficiently states what is returned (cluster info for the current instance). It could be more specific about what 'cluster info' includes, but for invocation purposes the description is adequately 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden for the description. The schema is fully complete for an empty input object, and no parameter-level explanation is needed. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get all cluster info for current instance.' It plainly identifies what the tool does and scopes it to the current instance, which helps distinguish it from the many other get_* tools in the sibling list (e.g., get_nodes, get_topics, get_me). No ambiguity remains about the target resource.

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 implies usage when an agent needs cluster-level metadata for the current instance, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no direct cluster-related siblings, so the lack of explicit routing is minor, but the guidance is still mostly implicit.

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