list_clusters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it indicates a read-only 'view' operation and clarifies the list-vs-detail response based on the name parameter. It does not disclose potential permission requirements, error conditions, or response structure beyond what is stated.

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 brief and front-loaded, but it repeats the conditional behavior in the main description and again in the Args section (e.g., '指定则返回该集群的配置详情' vs '指定则返回该集群详情'). Minor redundancy prevents a 5.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers behavior, parameters, and return type. It does not elaborate on pagination, authorization, or field details, but these are not expected for a basic list/detail operation.

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 description fully compensates by explaining the single name parameter: it is optional, omitting it lists all clusters, and specifying it returns cluster details. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare string/null 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 uses a clear verb+resource ('查看集群配置') and specifies conditional behavior: omitting name lists all imported clusters, while specifying name returns cluster details. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_cluster_info, which may also return cluster details, so sibling distinction is incomplete.

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?

It gives clear context on when to omit or specify the name parameter, effectively describing the two usage modes. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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