List readable clusters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are filtered per cluster on namespace/name read permissions, and a global '*' grant must not cause scoped users to be blocked from listing permitted clusters — a non-obvious authorization nuance an agent would not infer from structured fields.

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?

Only two sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded, which is good. But the second sentence is a dense, jargon-heavy implementation constraint ("a global '*' check must not prevent scoped users...") that reads like a ticket acceptance criterion rather than agent-facing guidance, and it pushes out more useful content like pagination.

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?

For a simple three-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition covers the tricky part — permission-filtered results — but omits pagination behavior and any sense of result shape or ordering. An agent could invoke it, but would likely mishandle large result sets or misunderstand what the namespace filter does.

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 parameter meaning, and it largely does not. It references namespace/name permission scoping but never explains the namespace filter parameter's effect, and says nothing at all about limit (default 100, max 500) or cursor-based pagination, leaving two of three parameters undefined anywhere in the definition.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List readable clusters") and the qualifier "readable" distinguishes it from cluster_get and other single-object siblings. The second sentence, however, drifts into an internal permission-check requirement rather than clarifying what the tool returns, which slightly muddies an otherwise clear purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this versus cluster_get or cluster_status_get, nor any mention of how to page through a large cluster set. The only usage-relevant signal is implicit: the tool returns only clusters the caller may read, which tells an agent the results are permission-scoped but not when to reach for it.

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