ks_list_clusters

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('list all'), but does not disclose whether the result includes only names or full cluster configurations, whether pagination is used, or any permissions required. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It captures the essence without extra words, which is appropriate for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description could still be more complete by mentioning what the output contains (e.g., cluster names, regions) or any limitations like pagination. It is minimal to the point of leaving ambiguity.

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?

The input schema has no parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly implies no parameters are needed.

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 clearly states it lists Kubernetes/OpenShift clusters, which is the tool's primary action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ks_get_cluster (gets single cluster details) and ks_create_cluster, but does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that ks_get_cluster should be used for a specific cluster's details, or that parameters are not needed.

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