get_tkc_available_versions

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true) already cover safety and idempotency. The description adds '[READ]' and 'available versions' but does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination, caching, or authentication needs. It does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise: one-line summary and a two-line Args section. Every word serves a purpose. No redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 simple parameter count (2), rich annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. However, it omits expected output format or examples, which would enhance completeness for an agent.

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%, but the tool description includes an 'Args' section explaining namespace ('vSphere Namespace (used to connect to Supervisor)') and target ('vCenter target name'). This adds practical meaning beyond the schema's placeholder titles.

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 action 'List' and the resource 'K8s versions available for new TKC clusters'. The '[READ]' prefix emphasizes read-only nature. Among siblings like create_tkc_cluster and list_tkc_clusters, this tool is distinct as it retrieves available versions, not cluster instances.

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 parameter details but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., check_vks_compatibility or list_tkc_clusters). It does not specify prerequisites, typical workflow, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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