get_tkc_cluster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it specifies the return shape (one object, not the list envelope), lists the exact fields returned, and explains that it serves as a polling tool for async mutations. It does not contradict annotations, though it could go further (e.g., error conditions), but it scores high given the annotation coverage.

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 [READ] tag, a clear one-line purpose, a list of return fields, usage guidance, and a separated Args section. Every sentence provides useful information with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and maintains readability.

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 has no output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact fields. It covers the prerequisite (run list first), the polling use case, and parameter meanings. It is complete for a read-only status tool and fits well within the sibling set by clearly differentiating from listing and mutation tools. No critical information 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It provides meaningful descriptions for all three parameters: name ('Cluster name via list_tkc_clusters'), namespace ('Namespace holding it'), and target ('vCenter in config.yaml; omit for the default'). This goes well beyond the bare schema and clarifies usage nuances like namespace-scoped uniqueness.

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 'Get detailed status for a single TKC cluster' — a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes itself from list_tkc_clusters by noting 'Returns one object, not the list envelope.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_tkc_clusters and the mutation tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Run list_tkc_clusters first' because a TKC name is only unique within a namespace, and 'Poll this after create_tkc_cluster, scale_tkc_cluster or upgrade_tkc_cluster to watch an async change land.' This provides clear prerequisites and typical usage context, effectively guiding the agent toward correct invocation.

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