get_tkc_cluster

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns a single object with a defined field set, confirms it is not the list envelope, explains the namespace-uniqueness constraint, and positions it as a polling mechanism for async operations. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 compact and efficient: [READ] tag, one-sentence purpose, field list, then two pieces of workflow guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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 single-object getter with no output schema, the description covers the full picture: purpose, return shape, key fields, namespace scoping, and when to call it. The input schema covers the parameters, and annotations cover safety. No obvious gap would leave an agent uncertain about how to invoke or interpret the tool.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds useful contextual emphasis about looking up names via list_tkc_clusters and names being namespace-scoped, but it does not add significant new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Get detailed status for a single TKC cluster.' It explicitly differentiates from list_tkc_clusters by stating it returns one object, not the list envelope, and lists the returned fields. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: run list_tkc_clusters first because a TKC name is unique only within a namespace, and poll this tool after create/scale/upgrade operations to observe async changes. It clearly states context, though it does not explicitly describe when to choose an alternative tool beyond the implied list-vs-single distinction.

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