describe_cluster

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'describe' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly state this is safe/non-destructive. It provides an example output but doesn't describe error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with invalid cluster IDs. The example is helpful but incomplete for behavioral understanding.

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 with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns, Example). The opening sentence is direct, and the example is appropriately detailed. However, the example takes significant space and could potentially be summarized more concisely while still being informative.

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-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of what the tool does and what it returns. The example output is particularly valuable. However, it lacks context about error handling, authentication, and when this operation might fail - important for a tool that presumably queries infrastructure resources.

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 only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by clearly documenting the single parameter 'cluster_id' in the Args section and explaining it as 'ID of the cluster whose details are to return'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints or validation rules.

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 the tool's purpose with 'Describe a cluster in detail' - a specific verb ('describe') and resource ('cluster'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_clusters' (which lists multiple) and 'query_cluster_metrics' (which focuses on metrics). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'describe_collection' which describes a different resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when you'd use 'describe_cluster' versus 'list_clusters' (for overview vs details) or 'query_cluster_metrics' (for metrics vs configuration). There's no mention of prerequisites or when this operation is appropriate.

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