get_supervisor_status

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description details return fields and semantics (e.g., config_status values, kubernetes_version null behavior with hint), and begins with '[READ]' to reinforce safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting 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 well-structured: a lead sentence, a concise list of return fields, usage guidance, and then parameter details. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, output, prerequisites, parameter semantics, and typical usage context. No output schema exists, but the description fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 fully compensates by explaining cluster_id with an example and source from check_vks_compatibility, and target with its default behavior. This goes far beyond the bare schema, making invocation accurate.

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 'Get the health of one Supervisor Cluster' with a specific verb and resource, listing the exact status fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_namespace and get_tkc_cluster by focusing on Supervisor Cluster health.

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 instructs to run check_vks_compatibility first for cluster IDs and to use this tool to confirm health before create_namespace or create_tkc_cluster, giving clear when-to-use context and prerequisites. This is strong guidance for an agent deciding between tools.

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