get_supervisor_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the exact returned fields, including config_status semantics (RUNNING = healthy, else CONFIGURING / ERROR / REMOVING) and kubernetes_status values. This is useful behavioral context for interpreting the response.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by a compact list of returned fields and a single workflow sentence. Every sentence contributes useful information; there is no repetition of schema content or filler.

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?

Without an output schema, the description enumerates the key return fields and their meaning, states prerequisites, and names the dependent operations. For a simple read-only health-check tool with only one required parameter, nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds one contextual link for cluster_id by pointing to check_vks_compatibility as the source of cluster IDs, matching the schema's 'wcp_clusters field' note, but it does not need to explain target further.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '[READ] Get the health of one Supervisor Cluster (vSphere with Tanzu control plane).' It clearly identifies the tool's output (health status fields) and names the workflow context, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_vks_compatibility and get_supervisor_kubeconfig.

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 gives explicit sequencing: 'Run check_vks_compatibility first for cluster IDs; use this to confirm a Supervisor is healthy before create_namespace or create_tkc_cluster.' This tells an agent when to call this tool relative to relevant siblings and what decision it supports.

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