cluster_info

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

Annotations already label it as read-only and idempotent. The description reinforces that (no side effects) and adds details about what the return contains and error handling. No contradiction.

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 a header, usage hints, and parameter/return details. It is slightly verbose but front-loaded with the essential purpose. Not wasteful, but could be tightened.

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 fully specifies return format (Dict with name, host_count, hosts, ha_enabled, etc.) and error handling. Combined with annotations, it provides complete context.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains each parameter: 'Exact cluster name' for 'name' and 'vCenter target name from config.yaml; omit to use the default target' for 'target', adding critical usage context not present in the schema.

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 begins with 'GET detailed cluster information' and lists specific components (member hosts, HA/DRS config, resource capacity), clearly stating its purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cluster_add_host and cluster_configure by explicitly mentioning usage context.

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 states 'Read-only, no side effects' and advises use before cluster_add_host/cluster_remove_host and to verify cluster_configure changes. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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