cluster_list

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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared, and the description reinforces it with the [READ] tag while adding genuinely new behavior: the result reports `returned`, `limit`, and `truncated` so a capped read is detectable. It does not cover rate limits or result ordering, so it falls slightly short of exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the critical call-first instruction, then a compact per-parameter block with no filler. The bracketed [READ] tag is mildly redundant given readOnlyHint, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in by naming the returned fields and the truncation metadata, and it explains both parameters plus the ordering dependency on other tools. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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%, so the description carries the burden and largely meets it: `limit` is explained with its default and, more usefully, how truncation is surfaced in the response; `target` is identified as a Prism Central config name with "omit for the default." Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List registered clusters") and enumerates the returned attributes (extId, name, AOS version, hypervisors, nodes), which cleanly separates it from siblings like cluster_health and cluster_utilization that operate on a single cluster rather than enumerating the inventory.

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?

"Call this first — most other tools need a clusterExtId from here" gives explicit, actionable sequencing guidance that an agent can act on immediately. It stops short of naming concrete alternatives or stating when NOT to use it, so it is not a full 5.

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