Check cluster connection

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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds that it lists nodes and namespaces and frames the reachability check in a way that helps the agent interpret potential failures. This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides actionable usage context that earns its place.

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 zero-parameter reachability check with strong safety annotationscarset, nothing essential is missing. The description tells the agent what to expect and when to call it; no output schema is present, but the simple list/confirm behavior is sufficiently clear.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters鑑with full schema coverage by default. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and it doesn't try. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Confirm', 'list') and names the exact resources ('nodes and namespaces'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling deployment and inspection tools by focusing on cluster connectivity rather than project or manifest operations.

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 explicitly says 'Call this before deploying', giving clear situational guidance. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the strongest possible guidance, but the context is unambiguous.

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