get_supervisor_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces read-only behavior and adds details: kubernetes_version may be null with a hint if the call fails. No contradictions.

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 '[READ]', efficiently organized with bullet-like lists for return fields and args. Every sentence adds value, no waste, and it's well-structured for an agent to parse.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains all returned fields and a potential edge case (null version). It references the prerequisite sibling tool and provides complete guidance for effective use.

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 has 0% coverage, but the description gives detailed meaning for both parameters: cluster_id is a MoRef ID with example 'domain-c1' and source field, target is a config file entry with default behavior. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 gets the status of a Supervisor Cluster, listing specific returned fields like cluster_id, config_status, kubernetes_status, etc. It uses the verb 'Get' and distinguishes from sibling tools like check_vks_compatibility (which discovers cluster IDs).

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 explicitly advises to run check_vks_compatibility first to discover cluster IDs, and to use this tool to verify health before creating namespaces or TKC clusters. It provides clear context for when and why to use the tool.

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