get_cluster_last_apply_result

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real context beyond them: a 'not found' teaching error for a never-remediated cluster and a 503 that yields available: False mid-patch with a retry instruction. This error/retry behavior is not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Structured into when-to-use, what-it-returns, and gotchas sections with the operation and scope front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct information; none is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing the return shape ({available, cluster, status, end_time, note, fields}) and the degraded cases. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a discovery pointer ('see list_all_clusters') that tells the agent how to obtain the required cluster MoID, plus reiterates the MoID format with a concrete example.

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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: the last vLCM remediation apply result on a single cluster. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (get_cluster_patch_compliance) so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

States when to use ('after a patch/remediation, to confirm the last apply succeeded and when it finished') and gives the explicit alternative plus its selection condition ('use get_cluster_patch_compliance for current drift; use this for the outcome of the most recent apply'). Nothing is left to inference.

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