cluster_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates that. The description does add value by naming the fields exposed per cluster, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what an empty result means.

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 content is front-loaded into one sentence followed by a tight Args block with no filler. Structure is appropriate for a two-parameter list tool, though the leading purpose clause reads slightly telegraphically.

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 partially compensates by naming the key per-cluster fields returned, and it covers both parameters fully. Missing only secondary details such as result ordering or pagination behavior for a simple read-only list.

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 must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it documents the limit range (1-1000) and default (100) plus the meaning and default fallback of target, details absent from the schema. It could still clarify units or ordering semantics for limit.

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 states the resource (clusters) and the salient fields returned (compatibility version, CPU type, memory over-commit policy), which is more specific than a tautology. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like host_list or datacenter_list beyond the resource name, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only conditional behavior stated is for the `target` argument (omit to use the default), which is argument behavior rather than tool-selection guidance.

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